Antarctic Bill

Consideration ofBill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Cost-benefit analysis

‘The Secretary of State must lay before the House a cost-benefit analysis of the measures in this Act not later than three years after the coming into force of this Act.’.—(Mr Nuttall.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Nuttall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
	Amendment 2, page 4, line 19, leave out clause 5.
	Amendment 1, in clause 15, page 12, line 19 , at end insert—
	‘( ) This section shall apply to designated Historic Sites and Monuments anywhere in Antarctica.’.

David Nuttall: I am conscious this morning that families throughout the nation might be tuning into our proceedings expecting to hear us talk about the tragic developments in Algeria, but as Members will know, and as you will know, Mr Speaker, under the Standing Orders of the House, a statement is to be made at 11 o’clock. It is appropriate, then, that we deal now with the private Members’ Bills, the first of which is the Antarctic Bill, and my new clause.
	I am grateful that new clause 1 has been selected for debate this morning, because it gives the House the opportunity to consider in more depth the likely consequences of the Bill. This straightforward new clause simply calls on the Secretary of State to lay a report before the House, within three years of the Bill’s coming into force, a cost-benefit analysis of the measures in it. Of course, it is in no way a wrecking amendment and will in no way undermine the basic purpose of this excellent Bill. The only purpose of the new clause is to try to improve the Bill and give the House the opportunity to revisit it in three years to check whether what was intended is actually happening. Assuming that the Bill becomes law later this year, I would anticipate that such a review would take place at the beginning of 2016.
	We hear a lot in the House about pre-legislative scrutiny, but sometimes an equally important case can be made for post-legislative scrutiny. Some of the Bills
	we pass never see the light of day. I was amazed when I was elected to this place to find out that some Acts had lain on the statute book for years without ever being brought into force. I hope that that will not be the case with this Bill.

Philip Davies: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend’s analysis that post-legislative scrutiny is a good thing, but on this amendment, which calls for a cost-benefit analysis—I have no problem with that in principle—will he make it clear whether the analysis would be for the Government alone or take into account the costs of other people as well?

David Nuttall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because I realise that it might be unclear. I anticipate that it would be both. It is right and proper that the Government review and explain to the House the costs of the Bill to them and, perhaps more importantly, its effects on private companies, research in the Antarctic and those who want to visit the Antarctic or have their livelihoods there. I anticipate that the cost-benefit analysis would apply to both the Government and private individuals and companies.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful clarification. I think that a more wide-ranging cost-benefit analysis would be more appropriate, given the nature of the Bill. Will he confirm that his cost-benefit analysis would not simply be financial, but would take into account other costs and benefits as well?

David Nuttall: I am grateful for that intervention, because it is important not to look at the Bill just in financial terms. We need to look at it more widely. The whole purpose of the Bill is to protect the environment of the Antarctic continent. We cannot assess the value of the Bill just in pounds, shillings and pence, as we used to say—I suppose we would say “pounds and pence” nowadays. We have to look at the overall impact of the Bill and ask whether it is achieving what it set out to achieve, which is to protect the environment of the Antarctic. The thrust of the Bill is to bring into UK law the environmental protection provided by the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty, so the analysis should be wider than simply a financial analysis.

Harriett Baldwin: Further to an earlier intervention, can my hon. Friend explain exactly how we would measure the benefits under his new clause?

David Nuttall: That is a very good point. It would be up to the Secretary of State at the Foreign Office to consider what would be the best way. My view is that we would have to consult the scientists who are there now, at the Antarctic bases, and ask the travel companies that want to carry out tourism in the area. We would also need a wider consultation, because others may be put off from carrying out scientific experiments or visiting as a result of the Bill. We are therefore talking not just about those who are doing good, but about those who might be put off, and whom we will have to contact in other ways. In effect, there might have to be a call for evidence towards
	the end of the three-year period, so that we can assess whether people have been put off—although I will mention that later.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying, but I am slightly concerned that the cost-benefit analysis will be so complex that it will itself have a considerable cost. Then we will need a cost-benefit analysis of the cost-benefit analysis. I hope that that will not be the case.

David Nuttall: I am grateful for that intervention. Let me immediately put my hon. Friend’s fears to bed. I do not envisage the report being a weighty tome, involving dozens of civil servants conducting a detailed analysis. Clearly there will be a cost involved—that is patently obvious—but in the long run it is better to have the wider benefits of a cost-benefit analysis than not to conduct one, because the important thing is that the Bill is effective in its purpose. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, we cannot really put a price on that. If the Bill turns out not to be effective, we need to know about it as legislators.

Philip Davies: rose—

Jake Berry: rose—

David Nuttall: I give way to my constituency neighbour from Rossendale and Darwen.

Jake Berry: Did my hon. Friend consider specifying a longer period than three years? Being a lawyer, like me, he will realise that if an environmental catastrophe was not caused by a third party, things could conceivably still be grinding through the courts after three years. Did he consider having perhaps a six-year period or a rolling cost-benefit analysis? It is not beyond conception that in three years no catastrophe would have happened—we certainly hope it would not—so did he consider other time periods?

David Nuttall: Yes, I did. Indeed, I am grateful for that intervention because it gives me a chance to say that I was tempted to have a longer period. If there are problems with the Bill putting people off from visiting or carrying out scientific work in the region, we need to know about them sooner rather than later. There might be a case for conducting a further review, because—I will touch on this later—there may well not be an environmental emergency in that three-year period. I sincerely hope that there is not, but that would mean that we were unable to assess the effectiveness of some of the provisions in the Bill, because they are relevant only in the event of such an emergency.
	My new clause 1 would give the House the opportunity to check whether the expected benefits of the Bill had become a reality. For example, has there been an increase in the effectiveness and appropriateness of the measures being taken to prevent damage from being caused to the precious Antarctic environment? On the other hand, as I said in response to an earlier intervention, have the measures in the Bill proved so onerous in practice that
	there has been a reduction in the level of interest in the region, in terms of either the number of tourists visiting or the amount of scientific investigations and study of the Antarctic region? I think we can all agree that we do not want the obligations on the scientists studying in the area to be so burdensome that they reduce the valuable work they do there.
	Clause 6 requires organisers of activities in Antarctica to secure adequate insurance cover or provide other financial securities, such as bonds or guarantees from a bank or similar institution, to cover the cost of taking the response action set out in clause 1, together with any liability to another party to annex VI to the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty who takes the response action to an environmental emergency in the event that the organising party does not take such action. It is worth noting that “environmental emergency” in this context means
	“an accidental event that results in, or imminently threatens to result in, any significant harmful impact on the environment of Antarctica.”
	Fortunately, the schedule to the Bill provides for financial limits to the amount of the liability, which varies depending on whether the environmental emergency arises from an event involving a ship. Unsurprisingly, given the international nature of the agreement, the amount of liability is fixed by reference not to pounds sterling, but to special drawing rights, which is the international currency fixed by the International Monetary Fund. Even allowing for those limits, however, given that the nature of such an environmental emergency is almost unlimited and given the understandable caution of the insurance companies, the cost of providing such insurance might be very high indeed. It could be so high that it prohibited visits from taking place and scientific study from being carried out. I appreciate that that is not the intention of the Bill, but new clause 1 would give the House the opportunity to revisit the matter and assess whether the costs involved in obtaining insurance or bonds were proving an insurmountable hurdle for those affected by the Bill.
	As I said in response to an earlier intervention, I am sure we all fervently hope that no environmental emergency would arise during the initial three-year review period. Nevertheless, if such an emergency did arise, the cost-benefit analysis would enable the Secretary of State, and subsequently this House, to assess whether the duty-to-inform obligations contained in clause 7 are effective. Although they are backed up by criminal sanctions, the purpose of the Bill is to protect the Antarctic environment, not to give criminal records to scientists. While we need the criminal sanctions to be in place, more importantly we need the reporting obligations to be effective and to work in practice.
	In the event of an emergency, the notification must be prompt. New clause 1 will enable the House to assess the effectiveness of a section 7 duty. I reiterate the point that we all hope that no emergency occurs, so that we will not be given the opportunity to test whether that provision is right.
	The Bill is intended to prevent accidental environmental damage from occurring in the first place by imposing on individuals organising activities in Antarctica an obligation to take reasonable preventive measures designed to reduce the risk of an environmental emergency. These requirements are set out in clause 5. They are
	fairly onerous. They set out in some detail what is required of a party organising work in the Antarctic, and costs associated with the carrying out of these measures are inevitable.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend will be aware that I have tabled an amendment seeking to delete clause 5 from the Bill. If I were successful in persuading my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael)and the Minister that clause 5 should not be in the Bill, would that negate the need for the cost-benefit analysis?

David Nuttall: I appreciate that if the House decided to accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, clause 5 would be deleted. It is not often that I find cause to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but having considered whether it would be appropriate to delete clause 5, I am not at this stage minded to agree that it would. Having heard my hon. Friend’s persuasive arguments later, I might change my mind—

Philip Davies: I doubt it.

David Nuttall: The reality is that the duty in clause 5
	“to take preventative measures and make contingency plan”
	is at the heart of what the Bill is all about. It makes sense for someone visiting the Antarctic region to do some forward thinking and sit down with a pen and paper to produce a plan relating to what might happen if something goes wrong, bearing in mind that the general thrust of environmental protection legislation in this area is to leave the Antarctic environment completely pristine. Nothing should be left behind at all.

Harriett Baldwin: My understanding is that as a result of this Bill, which I sincerely hope will become an Act during today’s proceedings, we will preserve the British heritage in Antarctica, including the historic huts built by Captain Robert Scott and Sir Ernest Shackleton. Surely such heritage is priceless; for the purposes of the new clause, how can we put a price on that?

David Nuttall: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I think I made it clear in response to an earlier intervention that although we will need to assess the financial costs stemming from the Bill, I anticipate that the review should go wider than the financial effects alone. As she rightly says, we cannot put a price on the Antarctic environment. We need to look at much wider matters; indeed, she touched on the historic sites on Antarctica. I shall return to this issue when we look at my amendment 1, which is designed to protect “Historic Sites and Monuments” that are indeed part of this nation’s heritage and need protecting.

Philip Davies: I want to press my hon. Friend. My last intervention encouraged him to say how much he disagreed with my amendment, but I was not asking him whether he agreed with it. I simply asked whether, if I were able to persuade the House of the merits of my amendment—notwithstanding the fact that my hon. Friend would be in the opposite Lobby on any Division—it negate the need for a cost-benefit analysis. Is clause 5 the reason why we need a cost-benefit analysis? That is the point of my probing question.

David Nuttall: I think the answer to that question is simply this: clearly, clause 5 would add to the size of the cost-benefit analysis, but it would not negate the need for such an analysis. Without clause 5, a whole chunk of the analysis would be swept away. As I made clear in my reply to my hon. Friend’s earlier intervention—again, I may be wrong, and he may be able to persuade me and the House that there are very good reasons for getting rid of clause 5—it seems to me that clause 5 goes to the heart of what the Bill is trying to achieve. While it remains part of the Bill—I hope it continues to do so—there will clearly be associated costs for those who have to sit down, carry out these measures and prepare the contingency plans. Sensible as I think that is, it is also sensible for the House to assess whether it is having an adverse effect on those who want to visit Antarctica and carry out their work there. We do not want the Bill to be counter-productive.
	There is another matter for the House to reconsider—

Jake Berry: Before my hon. Friend moves on to that other matter, I would like to put a point to him. There has been some discussion about the necessity of clause 5, which is at the heart of protecting this pristine environment. Times move on. I remember my grandfather telling me how he used to have snowball fights with asbestos fibre and think it was a good thing to do. Given that times move on, would not the cost-benefit analysis provide us with the ability to revisit clause 5 to ensure that we have the strongest possible protection for this pristine environment, to look at the effect of modern technologies and to update the provisions where it was felt necessary?

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not just about whether the Bill is being too effective in the sense of putting people off from visiting; it is also about whether it is effective enough in protecting the environment. Indeed, my hon. Friend has presciently looked at my next point. One measure in the Bill is the exclusion of fishing for profit. By virtue of clause 9(3)(a),
	“the activity of fishing for profit”
	is specifically excluded. A review would give us the opportunity to reconsider that matter and decide whether it is right to exclude it. Under clause 9(3)(b), the
	“activities carried out…on a vessel or aircraft travelling to an immediate destination outside Antarctica”
	are similarly excluded. I am sure there are very good reasons for these exclusions, but bearing in mind the tenor of the debate, I find it odd that they should continue to be in the Bill.

Jake Berry: My hon. Friend has identified a key issue. Fishing for profit does not, of course, cover all fishing activities: the Japanese whaling fleet, for instance, fishes for “scientific purposes”—if we believe that. I wonder whether a blanket exclusion of all fishing, whether for scientific purposes or for profit, would provide more protection. Perhaps when we return to the matter in three years’ time we could consider updating the provision if the position changes.

David Nuttall: That is a very good point. The House may well need to reconsider. Every visit to Antarctica carries a risk of environmental damage. Every time a sailing ship visits the Antarctic waters, for whatever
	purpose—tourism, carrying scientists into the area, or fishing—damage is likely to occur. Not many years ago, I think in 2007, a ship sank in Antarctic waters. I may say more about that later. It cannot be said that such things do not happen. Ships do sink in Antarctica, because although they have been specially strengthened, the ice is still powerful. It can still penetrate the defences of ships and cause them to sink. We may well have to look again at these provisions to establish whether they are strong enough.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend appears, whether deliberately or inadvertently, to be moving on to the issue of whether the cost-benefit analysis should focus only on UK nationals and the UK Government or cover anyone who visits the Antarctic, from whatever country, right across the globe. Has he had any thoughts about how wide its focus should be?

David Nuttall: My own view is that the cost-benefit analysis would be relevant only to the UK. I think that it would be beyond the scope of the review that I have in mind to deal with matters on a worldwide basis. It might be necessary to adopt a wider perspective, but I thought it appropriate for the analysis to be confined to the effect on British citizens, British-led expeditions and British scientists.

Philip Davies: I understand that, but surely my hon. Friend appreciates its relevance to the international treaties and international obligations that we expect other countries to implement. From a purely UK perspective, the costs might well outweigh the benefit, but if we take account of the obligations taken on by other countries, the benefit would outweigh the cost. Surely we should view this from as wide a perspective as possible.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend has made an important point. Given that the Bill’s origins lie in international treaty obligations, the answer may well be for all the contracting parties to the Antarctic treaty to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. The other contracting parties might use the UK’s review as a model or precedent for a cost-benefit analysis applying to the overall use of the Antarctic.

Philip Davies: Surely the danger of allowing each country to conduct its own cost-benefit analysis is that it would take only one country to feel that, for it, the cost was outweighing the benefit for all of them to start trying to wriggle out of their international obligations, and to be deterred from entering into any future such obligations. Might it not be better for the UK Government to conduct an analysis across the piece?

David Nuttall: I understand what my hon. Friend means. There is always the risk, with any international agreement, that at some point in the future one of the member states will decide that it wants to leave. I can think of a situation closer to home in which one of the parties to an international agreement wants to leave, but we will not go into that.
	The Antarctic convention is, in many respects, a model of international co-operation. It is many decades since the signing of the original treaty, and over the ensuing decade the number of contracting parties, which
	I think was initially 12, has grown considerably. More countries are now interested in protecting the Antarctic environment. I would hope that the cost-benefit analysis would be conducted in the right spirit, and that it would be a question not just of cost, but of the benefit to the world of continuing to protect Antarctica as it is protected at present.

George Hollingbery: My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made an interesting point about the wider obligations of third-party signatories to the Antarctic treaty. We may have rather lost sight of the fact that the Bill rests on treaty obligations created by the UK, and that it imposes obligations on UK signatories only. Is it not a step too far to require the UK Government to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of all the other countries’ obligations under the Bill if they have absolutely no chance of commanding, or persuading, the other legislatures to do anything other than what is provided for in their own legislation? It seems to me that Government expenditure on a cost-benefit analysis relating to matters that the Government cannot control would not be not a good use of taxpayers’ money.

David Nuttall: I believe that if we conducted a cost-benefit analysis in the right spirit, it might serve as a model for other countries, which could look again at their obligations and decide whether they too could improve their interpretation of what was agreed in annex VI, although of course the matter would have to be dealt with on an international basis. The fundamental question is this: is annex VI working? Are we achieving what we thought we were achieving? That would be the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis.
	Let me now turn to amendment 1. For reasons that I hope will become apparent, I think it vital for the Bill to make absolutely clear that clause 15 does not apply only to historic sites and monuments on the British Antarctic territory. The clause seeks to amend section 10 of the Antarctic Act 1994, which is very short. Subsection (1) states:
	“No United Kingdom National may damage, destroy or remove any part of a site or monument designated by regulations as an Antarctic Historic Site or Monument.”
	Subsection (2) states:
	“Any person who contravenes sub-section (1) shall be guilty of an offence.”
	That is very straightforward and very clear, but unfortunately it is so straightforward and clear that there are no provisos, and there thus is no possibility of permits for repair and conservation work.
	The prohibition is based on the provisions of article 8 of annex V to the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty, which deals with sites and monuments. It states:
	“Sites or monuments of recognised historic value which have been designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas or Antarctic Specially Managed Areas, or which are located within such Areas, shall be listed as Historic Sites and Monuments.”
	Any party could propose a site or monument of recognised historic value that had not been designated as an Antarctic specially protected area or Antarctic specially managed area, or which was not located within such an area, for listing as an historic site or monument. The proposal for listing may then be approved by the Antarctic treaty
	consultative parties, through a measure adopted at an Antarctic treaty consultative meeting. The provisions also state:
	“Unless the measure specifies otherwise, the proposal shall be deemed to have been approved 90 days after the close of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting at which it was adopted”.
	Over the years a number of countries have proposed their monuments, and there are now several dozen sites protected under this legislation.
	Unfortunately, the section 10 prohibition may have had the unintended consequence of preventing the appropriate conservation and effective management of these historic sites. For example, it may be necessary for part of a monument, or an object within a site, to be removed in order for it to be repaired. Clause 15 allows for a new system of permits to be introduced that would facilitate the necessary conservation or repair work.
	It may be of use to the House if I give some details of the types of site that the clause would cover. They range from simple rock cairns with plaques attached to what are, perhaps, the most famous sites of all: the huts used by Captain Scott in his expeditions of the early-1900s. Crucially, these huts are located not in the British claim area of the Antarctic territory, but on the north shore of Cape Evans on Ross island, which is in the New Zealand claim area. There is often some confusion between Scott’s hut and the Discovery hut. Scott’s hut at Cape Evans was erected in 1911 by the British Antarctic expedition which took place between 1910 and 1913, which was often referred to as the Terra Nova expedition. When Captain Scott was selecting a base for that expedition, he could have returned to his previous hut erected during the Discovery expedition between 1901 and 1904, but he did not do so, first because it was incredibly cold, and secondly because his ship got stuck. He looked for a different site, and established the second Scott’s hut, which is the one to which I am referring now.

Oliver Colvile: Is my hon. Friend aware that yesterday was the 101st anniversary of Scott’s arrival on the south pole before his first expedition, so this is an historic time?

David Nuttall: No, I was not aware of that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to the attention of the House. It is, perhaps, appropriate that we are discussing these matters today. It is almost impossible to imagine the conditions Scott and his companions had to endure, but the hut still standing today gives us some idea, and it seems amazing that they were able to carry out these expeditions.

Mr Speaker: Order. For the avoidance of doubt—we would not want to mislead anyone outside the House—may I say to the hon. Gentleman that the fact that this debate coincides with that anniversary is a matter of serendipity, not parliamentary organisation?

David Nuttall: It is, indeed, fortuitous.

Jake Berry: My hon. Friend talks about the unintended consequences of the 1994 Act. That point highlights why we should discuss this amendment in some detail, in order to ensure that historic monuments are protected. Does he agree that if a cost-benefit analysis of the 1994
	Act provisions had been conducted, we might have avoided the need for this amendment as we might have changed the legislation in good time, thus ensuring that we could preserve our historic monuments in the Antarctic?

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes a very good point that both supports my new clause 1 in proposing that a cost-benefit analysis be conducted, and my point about having a review. Section 10 of the 1994 Act did not work as intended. We found that in practice it was counter-productive and had unintended consequences. The historic huts, which are enormously important in the history of our nation, could not be protected as intended.
	Scott’s hut at Cape Evans was abandoned in 1917. However, there are, of course, consistently sub-zero temperatures there. We can get some idea of what that might be like by simply stepping outside this morning; it was, perhaps, appropriate that it was snowing when I walked into the House today. Because of those sub-zero temperatures, the hut’s contents are remarkably well-preserved even to this day. The hut remained untouched until 1956 when American explorers excavated it from the snow and ice. Although, sadly, some items were removed—perhaps as mementoes—most of the artefacts remain in place. At various times since the 1970s the United Kingdom and our friends in New Zealand have undertaken to restore the hut. Unfortunately, however, bacterial decay is still occurring and there are concerns that the fabric of the hut is being affected by fungal decay. Both Scott’s hut and Shackleton’s hut are included on the watch list of the 100 most endangered world monuments.
	There is evidence that these huts need to be repaired. As I have said, they are not all in British Antarctica; they are spread over the entire Antarctic continent. Permits need to be granted, therefore. I am grateful that my amendments have been selected, and I hope I have persuaded the House to agree to them.

Kerry McCarthy: I will be as brief as possible, as there are other Bills that we want to debate today, and this Bill has already been fully discussed on Second Reading and passed through Committee with no amendments. The Bill has the full support of the Opposition. It builds on the work of the previous Government, who published a consultation and draft Bill in December 2009.
	I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on his new clause 1 calling for a cost-benefit analysis of the measures in this Bill. His response to an intervention asking which costs and which benefits he proposed to measure was unclear and vague, however. As the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) has said, the Bill implements the annex to the Antarctic environmental protection treaty. It is important that we are committed to doing that and putting it in place as soon as possible. There is a danger of sending out completely the wrong signals if we are already questioning, at this stage, whether this Bill is really of benefit.
	I am in some ways reluctant to encourage the hon. Member for Bury North to speak at any more length during today’s proceedings, but does he think that the analysis would be conducted with the possibility of repealing the Act? As I said, the UK has made a
	commitment to the treaty and it is important not only that we are among the first to ratify the annex and to incorporate it into domestic law, but that we send out the signal that the UK is absolutely committed as a responsible guardian of the environment. We should not be seen as weak on this issue.

David Nuttall: I want to make it clear that I do not envisage, in any way, a cost-benefit analysis leading to the repeal of the Act—far from it. If anything, the legislation might need to be strengthened. The last thing that any of us would want would be for the Act to be repealed as a result of such analysis.

Kerry McCarthy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
	Obviously we have to keep a close eye on the costs that are incurred in any legislative measure, particularly at a time of austerity, but I am not sure how quantifiable these costs and benefits would be. Immeasurable environmental benefits arise from this move; the benefit for future generations of protecting the natural environment in the Antarctic and preserving the continent for scientific research cannot be reduced to a simple cost-benefit analysis on a financial basis. So, again, I question whether the hon. Gentleman is going down the right path in suggesting that we should have one. Nor can we measure the effect of this Bill on the UK’s foreign relations, but it is clear that the Falkland Islands Government and others believe that the Bill, once passed, will help to uphold the UK’s position in the region and the UK’s tradition of strong leadership in respect of the Antarctic. Again, we need to send out a strong signal in that regard.
	I have a few questions about the other amendments. It is entirely sensible that the Bill should contain a requirement that people organising activities in Antarctica should take reasonable preventive measures and make contingency plans to avoid an environmental emergency. I do not see why the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) does not think that such a provision is appropriate, but we will hear from him in a moment. I think it is entirely reasonable to expect these people to take preparatory measures, and I simply do not understand why clause 5 should be removed. Preventive measures are included in article 3 of the liability annex; the subsections requiring contingency plans relate to article 4. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clarify whether he does not want the UK to implement the annex in full. Alternatively, does he not believe that any party should sign up to this?
	I would also be grateful if the Minister would advise us on the extent to which organisers already comply with the preparatory measures. In Committee, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) explained that the existing permit process includes an environmental assessment and contingency planning. I would be grateful if today’s Minister would clarify that.

Philip Davies: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on getting his Bill to this stage, as it is no mean achievement to get a private Member’s Bill through to Report. He should be
	commended for the customary skill he has deployed in ensuring it has got this far. I do not think anybody in the Chamber today wishes to bury or scupper the Bill; everyone’s motive is, if anything, to improve the Bill. We all wish the Bill well and we are grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing such an important piece of legislation, which is particularly appropriate for the private Member’s Bill route.
	I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for once again giving us his insightful views. I also commend the way he critically looks at pieces of legislation. The absolute role of people in Parliament is to scrutinise legislation and make sure that what we put on to the statute book is fit for purpose. To be perfectly honest, without my hon. Friend, many private Members’ Bills would fail the test of proper scrutiny, so he should be once again commended for the way he introduces amendments.
	I have tabled only one amendment to the Bill, which, as the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made clear, relates to clause 5. I intend it to be a probing amendment, and I am hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the Minister will be able to explain exactly why the clause is necessary. I should make it clear that the reason I propose leaving out clause 5 is not because I do not agree with what it contains; the necessity for the clause is the point of dispute.
	I am certain that if the Bill were starting from scratch in terms of the protecting the Antarctic, clause 5 would be an essential part of it; my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North said that clause 5 went to the heart of the Bill. But what we are doing in this piece of legislation is, as is stated at the back of the Bill, making
	“provision consequential on Annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty”
	and amending the Antarctic Act 1994 in the process.
	Clause 5 implements articles 3 and 4 of annex VI—the liability annex. Subsection (2) places a requirement on people who are organising activities to be carried out in Antarctica and which are connected with the United Kingdom to take
	“reasonable preventative measures designed to reduce—
	(a) the risk of environmental emergencies arising from those activities, and
	(b) the potential…impact of such environmental emergencies.”
	The requirement must be fulfilled before the person carrying out the activities enters Antarctica, as is set out in subsection (6). Subsection (7) makes it an offence not to comply with the requirement, while subsection (9) establishes that any offence under subsection (7) is punishable by a maximum of two years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both if the person is convicted on indictment. On summary conviction the person may be liable to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, which is £5,000 at the moment but that could be amended. Subsection (3) gives examples of preventive measures that could be taken, including specialised equipment, procedures or training.
	Subsection (4) places a further requirement on people organising these activities to make contingency plans for responding to environmental emergencies and other incidents with a potential to cause adverse impacts on
	the environment of Antarctica that might arise from their activities. Again, the requirement applies only to activities that are
	“connected with the United Kingdom”,
	as is made clear in subsection (1). That requirement must also be fulfilled before the person carrying out the activities enters Antarctica. Subsection (8) makes it an offence not to comply with that requirement and subsection (9) establishes that any offence under subsection (8) is punishable by a maximum of two years’ imprisonment, a fine or both if the person is convicted on indictment. The same statutory maximum £5,000 fine applies on summary conviction.
	Subsection (5) provides examples of what a contingency plan may contain, including plans for taking response action to an environmental emergency or other incident and for informing the Secretary of State of its occurrence. Clause 13(9) defines activities connected with the UK as activities that are
	“organised in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or a British overseas territory”
	and are to be
	“carried out on a British expedition, within the meaning of the Antarctic Act 1994”
	or require a permit under that Act.

David Nuttall: All those matters to which my hon. Friend has just referred are taken almost word for word from annex VI. The whole purpose of the Bill is to enact in UK law what is said in articles 3 and 4 of the annex. If we removed clause 5, we would destroy a substantial part of the Bill and its whole purpose.

Philip Davies: I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I ask him to allow me to make a little progress. He might well be right; he is absolutely right to say what he does about the Bill implementing annex VI. Nobody can doubt that. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain in some detail why the Bill is necessary, given the requirements that are already in place under the 1994 Act. The whole point of that Act was to implement the previous five annexes. We are not starting from scratch; we are building on what is already in place.
	The 1994 Act already makes it an offence for a British expedition to enter Antarctica without the approval of the Secretary of State and a permit is required for any member of a British expedition unless they have one from another contracting party to the treaty. A British expedition can include non-UK nationals, but to be British it needs to be organised in the UK or to have the UK as its place of final departure. I believe that would include places such as the Falkland Islands, of course. Specific permits are issued for particular activities, such as the taking of flora and fauna and the introduction of non-native animals or plants. Permits are not needed for ships or aircraft travelling on to an immediate destination outside Antarctica or fishing vessels unless they are linked to an expedition. The permit requirements for British expeditions entering the Antarctic were introduced through the 1994 Act, which implemented the Antarctic treaty’s protocol on environmental protection and its various requirements, covering matters such as waste disposal and marine pollution.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides a comprehensive guide to the requirements for an expedition to Antarctica on its “Planning an expedition” page. What is more, it states:
	“All permit applications must be accompanied by a completed Environmental Impact Assessment.”
	That is already on the FCO website, which I have taken the liberty of looking at and printing off for the benefit of this debate. It makes it quite clear that:
	“All permit applications must be accompanied by a completed Environmental Impact Assessment.”
	It has a whole section on environmental impact assessments.

David Nuttall: Is it not the case that the FCO has included those provisions on its website and ensured that visitors abide by them because the UK signed annex VI and we have regarded ourselves as being bound by it since 2005?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend might well be right and I look forward with interest to what the Minister has to say on that point. I do not doubt that the Minister is a good man, and very sensible, and I am sure that there are particularly good reasons why the clause is necessary. I am not saying that the Minister has got this wrong and that we should delete clause 5 as a result. My amendment is a probing amendment, as I suggested at the start of my speech, to identify why we need the clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North is more of an expert on these matters than I am—I am a mere layman, but as a layman it was interesting to me that these provisions already seemed to be in place and it seemed that we were, in effect, double legislating and reinventing the wheel.
	The advice on environmental impact assessments that is already on the Foreign Office website states:
	“Please note we will not normally authorise activities for non-scientific purposes which are likely to have more than a minor or transitory impact on the Antarctic environment.”
	The thrust of my argument is that the measures in clause 5 are perhaps already in place. Let us look at what is already in place. Annex I to the protocol is already in legislation as part of the 1994 Act. It is all about environmental impact assessments—that is what it is about. When we talk about how important they are and say that that is why clause 5 is necessary, it seems to me that that argument is based on the fact that we are starting from scratch when we are not.
	I do not intend to read out annex I—I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you would neither wish me nor allow me to do so—because it would take an awful lot of time, which I would not want to take. If anyone were to read annex I to the protocol on environmental protection, they would see that it is pretty comprehensive. It states that itself and I am not in a position to doubt it.

George Hollingbery: I am not a lawyer, unlike a good many colleagues in the House today. Are the offences specified in clause 5, particularly the penalties detailed in subsections (8) and (9), already specified in a previous Act or are they enactments of punishments that may be used if the Bill is passed that would otherwise not be available?

Philip Davies: To be perfectly honest, my hon. Friend has got to the heart of my amendment. That is not particularly clear. The Bill might go further or the provisions might already be covered—I am not entirely
	clear. That is the purpose of my amendment: I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify what is covered by existing legislation and what, if anything, is new and necessary. It might be the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North suggested, that what we are putting into legislation today is needed to encourage all the other signatories to catch up with the UK Government. I genuinely do not know, which is why I think that amendment 2 is a useful probing amendment to allow the Minister to make it abundantly clear why we need this clause.
	Annex V to the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty, which is already in place, is about area protection and management. That seems to me to be covered by clause 5. Annex V contains several definitions, including (a), which is of an appropriate authority, (b), which is of a permit, and (c), which refers to a management plan. That seems to me to encroach totally on to the territory of clause 5. Annex V states:
	“‘Management Plan’ means a plan to manage the activities and protect the special value or values in an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or an Antarctic Specially Managed Area.”
	It seems to me, particularly from what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North was saying, that that is exactly what clause 5 seeks to do, yet the provision is already part of the 1994 Act.
	The objectives in annex V—I reassure you, Mr Speaker, that I am only picking out highlighted parts of this, and I do not mean to go through the whole thing, but it is relevant to the point I am trying to make about why we need this clause—

Stephen Pound: Mr Speaker will be the judge of that.

Philip Davies: Absolutely, and Mr Speaker is very capable of making those decisions without the hon. Gentleman’s help.
	Article 2 is about the objectives of annex V and states:
	“For the purposes set out in this Annex, any area, including any marine area, may be designated as an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or an Antarctic Specially Managed Area.”
	It goes on to state:
	“Activities in those Areas shall be prohibited, restricted or managed in accordance with Management Plans adopted under the provisions of this Annex.”
	Article 3 goes on to discuss Antarctic specially protected areas and article 4 is about Antarctic specially managed areas.

David Nuttall: My reading of annex V is that it refers to the protection of areas, rather than to the planning of visits to the area. That is the difference between annex V and annex VI.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right in that regard, but as I said, the 1994 Act already requires environmental impact assessments and people require the permission of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before they are allowed to go to the Antarctic. My hon. Friend is right in the detail of what he is saying but, as a layman, I do not see how that affects the current arrangements because, I would contend, the FCO already has the relevant powers.
	When annex V, which is covered by article 5, refers to management plans, it states in some detail what a proposed management plan should include. I certainly do not intend to take lots of time reading out what is covered, but I recommend that people look at annex V, as my hon. Friend clearly has, and read article 5 on management plans. I think everyone would agree that it is pretty comprehensive and detailed.
	Seeing that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is in his customary place, I certainly would not want to argue for unnecessary legislation, and I am sure he would berate me if I did not try to point out that this clause may be unnecessary. That goes to the heart of my reason for tabling my amendment. It may well be that there are very good reasons that make it necessary; but equally, it may well be covered by the existing legislation.

Jake Berry: Earlier, my hon. Friend referred to the new clause including places such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Has he made any inquiries of the Government about whether the existing legislation would cover those? The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are, of course, popular places to base holiday companies because of their beneficial tax status. He will be aware that in 1993, fewer than 9,000 people visited the Antarctic area on holiday. Now the figure is approaching 26,000. Does he think that the clause is necessary to pull in those holiday companies who are attempting to exploit the Antarctic for commercial gain?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That may well be an alternative explanation for why we need clause 5. My understanding is that those places are covered by the existing legislation, but my hon. Friend may well be right and I am sure we all wait with eager anticipation to hear what the Minister will tell us, so that we can all satisfy our curiosity on that point. I have no doubt that he has a good explanation.
	Hon. Members may well conclude that because all these provisions are already covered, it does no harm to put them in again, because they are already in there anyway, and if this chivvies other countries along to fulfil their obligations, no harm will be done. That may well be the case. If that is the explanation, I would not have a problem with that; but it has not been made clear to us exactly why the clause is necessary, which is why I tabled my amendment.
	I briefly want to touch on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North. I certainly do not intend to talk about amendment 1, which he went through in considerable detail; his expertise on that clearly exceeds mine. It seemed to be a rather technical matter, and certainly above my knowledge level. But I do want to discuss new clause 1, which would require a cost-benefit analysis.
	There are issues, which emerged during my hon. Friend’s speech, about what we mean by a cost-benefit analysis. Would such an analysis reflect the Government’s costs and benefits? Would the costs of individuals from the UK be covered? Should it be more internationally based? There might be a negative cost-benefit analysis to the UK, but a different result might be produced if everyone else’s costs and benefits were taken into account.
	Although there are issues about that, I do not believe they are insurmountable. I felt that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset was uncharacteristically defeatist in thinking that the cost-benefit analysis could become so bureaucratic that it would need its own cost-benefit analysis in order to be justified.
	I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North is on to something, because what the Bill sets out clearly, and the reason for this legislation, is that the Government know exactly what they are trying to achieve, so it is not unreasonable for someone to review it a few years down the line. My hon. Friend said three years—I do not know whether that was an arbitrary figure, or whether there was any more science behind that choice. I took his point that if there is a flaw in the legislation, it is better to know sooner rather than later. I thought that was a fair point. I do not know whether every three years might have been a better amendment in the sense of the ongoing point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) made, which I think was fair. Anyway, it should not be beyond the wit of people to take a look—it need not be bureaucratic or expensive—at whether the Bill’s aims and objectives have been met, and without prohibitive cost. That would be perfectly reasonable, and I do not think it should be confined to the legislation before us. The Bill might set a trend for conducting that level of post-legislative scrutiny.

Jake Berry: My hon. Friend is talking about a cost-benefit analysis. Would it not be better to talk about a benefit analysis? The shadow Minister asked, “How can you put a price on protecting the most pristine, unspoilt environment we have?” I think that is a valid point; I do not think that we can. But my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said that the 1994 Act had not done what it set out to do, which was to protect historic monuments. Should we not focus on the benefit test, rather than pricing up environmental protection, which I do not think is possible?

Philip Davies: That is a fair point. I do not have a strong view. I do not see the harm in doing a cost-benefit analysis. It may well be that people wish to focus on the benefit part; I would not have a problem with that. But that is not my point. My point is that if we are passing legislation for a specific purpose, there should be a duty on the Government to review it at some point in the future; whether it is three years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North suggests in his new clause, or whether it is a different time scale is a matter for debate, opinion and judgment. I would prefer to talk about the principle, which is that when the Government pass legislation and tell the House that its purpose is to do such-and-such and this is why it is important and so necessary, there should be a mechanism to see at a future date whether they were accurate in their analysis—whether it has done what it said. I know that Ronseal is a topical metaphor to use at the moment, but Governments should check more often whether the legislation does what it says on the tin. I see no great harm in that. I do not see why the Government should rail against it.

Oliver Colvile: Does my hon. Friend think that we could look at introducing sunset clauses into legislation much more readily, so that we can identify whether something has been successful? If it has not been successful, then get rid of it and start again.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are different ways of doing these things. Perhaps there should be a combination of both. The Scrap Metal Dealers Bill, which passed through this House not long ago, had both, owing to an amendment that I tabled. It had a review that took place after three years; it also incorporates a sunset clause whereby, after five years, the Act would expire and would have to be brought back again if it was seen to be worth while. So I think my hon. Friend is on to something. But of course, it would be difficult to justify a sunset clause without a cost-benefit analysis to help us decide whether we wished to extend the legislation or wished it to expire.

Jake Berry: May I caution my hon. Friend against overuse of the Ronseal test? Of course, Ronseal is based in the Deputy Prime Minister’s city of Sheffield. May I remind him that we have Crown Paints in Darwen in my constituency, which are more than capable of doing what they say on the tin? So there is not just Ronseal; other paint types are available.

Philip Davies: As a south Yorkshire boy originally, my allegiance is more to Sheffield than it ever would be to Lancashire. The wars of the roses never ended, in my book. I am afraid my hon. Friend is on a loser with me on that point, but I give him every credit for plugging his own constituency. It is not his fault that it is on the wrong side of the Pennines.
	I know that we are coming up to the statement and I do not want be cut off in my prime by the Prime Minister, who has to come to the House on a more sombre occasion to go through something that is far more serious and important. Our hearts go out to everybody who has been affected by that incident.
	There are some legitimate points for my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud or the Minister to take on board and respond to. I urge them both to set out why clause 5 is necessary. They may say that it is not necessary but it does no harm, which I will accept, but if their point is that clause 5 simply does no harm, perhaps they could explain what harm would be done by encouraging a cost-benefit analysis to be carried out, as requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North in new clause 1. Either these things are harmful or they are not. If they are not harmful, let us do them both, and if neither is necessary, let us do neither. It would not be right for the Government to cherry-pick one and say, “Let’s do it because it does no harm,” but also to say, “We won’t do the other one that does no harm because it is not necessary.” That would be a contradictory step for the Government to take.
	On that note I conclude my remarks. I hope I have reassured people about the motives behind my amendment. It is not to seek to destroy the nature or detail of the Bill, but to question in a probing fashion why it is necessary. I expect the Minister will be able to reassure me so that I am able to withdraw my amendment.

Neil Carmichael: First, I should tell the House that I have been to the Antarctic through the British Antarctic Survey and the Foreign Office. That should be noted as an interest.
	I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friends for tabling some useful amendments so that the Bill can be properly scrutinised and tested. It is an important piece of legislation and requires appropriate parliamentary consideration.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. With reference to my amendment, it would be interesting to know whether he had to do an environmental impact assessment when he visited the Antarctic, so that we can tell whether this is already a requirement.

Neil Carmichael: That is something I shall have to consult on. I personally did not have to do an environmental assessment, but I shall come to an aspect of that in connection with clause 5.
	It is slightly ironic that my constituency, Stroud, is covered in snow, as other constituencies will be, and here we are, discussing the Antarctic.
	I shall comment briefly on each amendment and put on record my own views. I tend to think that cost-benefit analyses are unnecessarily bureaucratic at the best of times, but the Bill is financially neutral anyway. That is the first point to make. Secondly, the thrust of the Bill is to encourage operators to behave properly, especially in planning for their activities. The idea is therefore to avoid problems, rather than counter them. The Bill’s overall direction of travel is to encourage that additional responsibility. I know that many operators are already responsible, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) noted, there have been some accidents, when ships collided with one another or sank completely.

Philip Davies: Surely my hon. Friend would accept that if a cost-benefit analysis took place, we could see whether the Bill had had the impact that we all hope for. If it had not had that impact, that could encourage further measures to be taken much more swiftly than if no cost-benefit analysis took place.

Neil Carmichael: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, but the idea is to ensure that people behave responsibly, and we will be checking that. Clause 5 contains various punitive measures if people do not conduct themselves in an appropriate way. That is likely to be a more effective measure of the outcome of the Bill. Furthermore, the Bill sets out a large number of measurement structures, and these are well addressed in the annexes, to which our attention has already been drawn. So I do not believe that new clause 1 is necessary.

David Nuttall: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. Does he not accept that, as I said in my remarks, the issue is not just about pounds, shillings and pence. It is also about ensuring the Bill’s effectiveness. Does he not agree that it would be sensible to review the Bill to see whether it is as effective as both he and I would like it to be?

Neil Carmichael: The real demonstration of the effectiveness of the Bill when it is enacted will be when other nation states implement similar legislation. It was
	an implicit part of the original treaty that we should all enact legislative measures to ensure that the measures agreed in the treaty are enforced through domestic law. The real success of the Bill is the leadership role that it demonstrates. Britain is taking a leadership role and saying to other nation states, “We want you to do the same.” When they start doing the same, that will be the real measure of success.

David Nuttall: On that point, is my hon. Friend able to update the House on how many of the other contracting parties have ratified the treaty?

Neil Carmichael: Indeed. Seven parties have already done so, which is exceptionally good news. They include countries as diverse as Peru and the Netherlands, so we are making good progress. Our action is the right one to ensure that we not just building on, but underlining our leadership role. That is why I believe new clause 1 is not necessary, although I accept the sentiment. It is right to make sure that the Bill is scrutinised and tested in the future.
	I shall turn my attention now to amendment 2 and the future of clause 5. One of the reasons why I mentioned my trip to Antarctica through the British Antarctic Survey is that while I was there and in preparation for the journey, I noted just how difficult the processes are to cover all the risks that one could encounter. That is why clause 5 is necessary. We have to insist, through legislation, that preparations are properly made and that people understand the risks involved in visiting Antarctica. By insisting that clause 5 remains in place, we are effectively saying, “Look, this is a matter of some importance. The necessary legislation is in place, and if you don’t do what is required of you, measures will be taken against you.”

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that under the 1994 Act and the measures already in place, that can already happen? The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has the ability to give permission or otherwise to people going to Antarctica, and environmental impact assessments must be carried out before they travel. I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but it does not explain why we need the clause when those provisions seem to be part of the 1994 Act.

Neil Carmichael: That is a good point. However, environmental assessments are one thing, but making preparations to visit a continent as brutal—pristine and vulnerable though it is—as the Antarctic can sometimes be is quite a different matter. Although an environmental assessment is necessary in many cases, including for such visits, it is very important to make sure that operators, visitors and others make every preparation in the proper way.
	Proceedings interrupted (Standing Order No. 11(4)).

Algeria

David Cameron: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the hostage crisis in Algeria and the tragic events of the past three days. I am sure the whole House will share my disgust and condemnation at the brutal and savage terrorist attack that has been unfolding in Algeria. Our thoughts and prayers this morning are with those still caught up in this incident, with their families who are waiting anxiously for news, and with those who have already lost loved ones.
	I have this morning chaired another meeting of the Cobra emergency committee and have just come from speaking again to the Algerian Prime Minister. Let me take the House through what we believe has happened, the steps we are taking now, and what this means for our security and the fight against terrorism around the world.
	In the early hours of Wednesday morning, terrorists attacked a gas installation run by BP, the Norwegian company Statoil, and the Algerian company Sonatrach at In Amenas in south-eastern Algeria near the Libyan border. The terrorist group is believed to have been operating under Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a criminal terrorist and smuggler who has been operating in Mali and in the region for a number of years and who has been affiliated with al-Qaeda in the Maghreb.
	In Amenas is some 18 hours by road from the capital, Algiers. It is in the middle of the Sahara desert and one of the most remote places in the world. As a result, it takes time to get a complete picture, and the full details are still emerging. But according to the information we have from the Algerian authorities, the terrorists first attacked two buses en route to the In Amenas airfield before attacking the residential compound and the gas facility at the installation. It appears to have been a large, well co-ordinated and heavily armed assault, and it is probable that it had been pre-planned. Two of those travelling in the convoy to the airfield were very sadly killed, including one British national, and his family were informed on Wednesday. A number of other workers were taken hostage by the terrorists in separate locations both at the residential compound and at the gas facility. The precise numbers involved remain unclear at this stage, but the hostages included British nationals, along with nationals of at least seven other countries, and of course many Algerians.
	As soon as we heard of the attack, we initiated the Government’s crisis management procedures in both London and Algeria. Our most immediate priority was to establish the identity and whereabouts of British nationals, to contact their families, and to do everything possible to secure their safe return. I chaired a meeting of the Government’s emergency committee, Cobra, and I spoke to the Algerian Prime Minister on Wednesday afternoon and then on three further occasions.
	From the outset, I have been clear about our implacable opposition to terrorism and said that we will stand with the Algerians in their fight against these terrorist forces, but I also emphasised the paramount importance of securing the safety of the hostages. I offered UK technical and intelligence support, including from experts in hostage negotiation and rescue, to help find a successful resolution; and I urged that we and other countries affected should
	be consulted before any action was taken. I also spoke to the leaders of other countries which had hostages taken, including Japanese Prime Minister Abe, Norwegian Prime Minister Stoltenberg, President Hollande and President Obama, and I co-ordinated further offers of support for the Algerians in dealing with the situation.
	During the course of Thursday morning, the Algerian forces mounted an operation. We were not informed of this in advance. I was told by the Algerian Prime Minister while it was taking place. He said that the terrorists had tried to flee, and that the Algerians judged there to be an immediate threat to the lives of the hostages and had felt obliged to respond. When I spoke to the Algerian Prime Minister later last night, he told me that this first operation was complete but that this is a large and complex site and they are still pursuing the terrorists and possibly some of the hostages in other areas of the site. The Algerian Prime Minister has just told me this morning that they are now looking at all possible routes to resolve this crisis.
	Last night the number of British citizens at risk was fewer than 30. Thankfully, we now know that that number has been quite significantly reduced. I am sure the House will understand why, during an ongoing operation, I cannot say more on this at this stage.
	Our priority remains the safety of the British nationals involved, the repatriation of those killed, and the evacuation of the wounded and freed hostages. A rapid deployment consular team is en route to Algiers, together with other specialists, and the Algerian Prime Minister has agreed my request to grant access to our consular staff to fly south as soon as possible to support those involved. I have also spoken to Bob Dudley at BP both last night and again this morning. We are liaising closely on BP’s evacuation plans and have put additional civilian aircraft on standby to assist it with its well-thought-through evacuations plans if needed.
	We need to be absolutely clear whose fault this is. It is the terrorists who are responsible for this attack and for the loss of life. The action of these extremists can never be justified. We will be resolute in our determination to fight terrorism and to stand with the Algerian Government, who have paid a heavy price over many years fighting against a savage terrorist campaign. This is a continuing situation, and we will do our best to keep Parliament and the public updated. We hope that this will reach a conclusion shortly. There will then, of course, be a moment to learn the necessary lessons. I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me say to him on behalf of the Opposition that the Government have our full support as they respond to these appalling and tragic events. I thank him for keeping me informed over the course of the past 24 hours or so.
	I start by echoing the Prime Minister’s words in offering our deepest concern and sympathy to the families and loved ones affected by this shocking act of terror. The thoughts of the House and the country will be with the family of the British citizen who has died and all those families enduring the uncertainty of waiting for news of their loved ones.
	Alongside Algerians and other foreign nationals, those involved are British citizens seeking to earn an honest living far from home and their families. It is appalling
	that innocent, decent people have been targeted in this way. There is no, nor can there ever be, justification for the taking of hostages. Those who planned and are responsible for this attack must be in no doubt that Britain, along with the international community, stands united in condemnation. As the Prime Minister said, it is the hostage-takers who bear the responsibility for these events, and we must do everything in our power to bring them to justice.
	I appreciate that the operation on the ground is ongoing and so the Prime Minister is obviously restricted in the information he can reveal. Bearing this in mind, I would like to ask him some questions. First, the families of those affected will need support and care at this difficult time, so will he assure the House that all necessary support will be provided, either directly here or through our consular services in the region, to the families of those affected?
	Secondly, there are a number of other such foreign-owned installations of this kind in Algeria and the wider region. Will the Prime Minister provide some information to the House about how the Government are working with British companies to review the security situation at these facilities?
	Thirdly, given that this incident happened in an isolated part of southern Algeria, what is the Government’s advice for UK nationals working, living or travelling in Algeria or the wider region?
	Fourthly, at this early stage, what information is the Prime Minister able to share about the motives of the terrorist cell responsible for this attack? More broadly, will he set out what is the Government’s assessment of the level of threat posed by groups connected to al-Qaeda in the Maghreb operating in the region? Had there been any indication of an increased threat from these groups?
	Fifthly, does he agree that this attack, alongside the events in Mali, is the latest indication of a still-growing security threat in north Africa and the wider region? Does he recognise that this demands intensified international collaboration, intelligence-sharing and diplomatic activity focused on this part of the world?
	For now, all efforts must now be centred on resolving this ongoing crisis and ensuring the safety of British citizens. For the families concerned, this is a dark and difficult time. The whole House stands united in support of them, and the thoughts of the whole country are with them.

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support and his words. He is right that there is no justification for this hostage-taking and we will continue to do everything we can to hunt the people down who were responsible for this and other such terrorist outrages. I will take his questions in turn.
	First, it is vital that the families get all the support possible. Police liaison officers are attached to each family and can keep them updated with any additional or new information. BP is obviously doing everything it can to provide support as well. BP has made an important statement this morning, which sets out what it has done to repatriate BP staff from Algeria. Three flights left Algeria yesterday, carrying a total of 11 BP employees.
	We are providing a back-up service to ensure that if there are gaps in what BP is able to do we can fill them.
	The right hon. Gentleman’s second question on the security of other installations is vital. We are co-ordinating urgently with British and western oil companies in the region about their security in the light of this incident. All installations in Algeria are on a state of high alert and additional security measures will be put in place where necessary. We have also taken precautions to ensure the security of diplomatic posts in the region, and have given them advice.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentions travel advice. That is an important issue. We continue to advise against all but essential travel to Algeria. We also advise against all but essential travel to areas within 450 km of the Mali and Niger borders, and within 100 km of the Mauritanian border. The travel advice has been updated to read:
	“A serious terrorist attack has taken place near the town of In Amenas near the Algerian border with Libya… The Algerian security forces have subsequently conducted operations in the area.”
	It remains a very dangerous, uncertain and fluid situation.
	The motives and precise identity of the terrorists are always difficult to determine at such an early stage. What we know is that the terrorist threat in the Sahel comes from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which aspires to establish Islamic law across the Sahel and northern Africa, and to attack western interests in the region and, frankly, wherever it can.
	The right hon. Gentleman rightly asked about the growth of the threat from this part of the world. It is growing and is rightly a focus for us and other countries. Just as we have reduced the scale of the al-Qaeda threat in parts of the world, including in Pakistan and Afghanistan, so the threat has grown in other parts of the world. We need to be equally concerned about that and equally focused on it.
	I hope that I have answered the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. There is a great need for not just Britain but other countries to give a priority to understanding better and working better with the countries in this region. The Government held a National Security Council meeting quite recently on this area and I have appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien) to be a special envoy to the region. The region obviously has a great French influence and many contacts with France, but we believe that it is important in our own national interest to thicken and improve our contacts with these countries. We must do that as part of the lessons to be learned from this exercise.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions and the way in which he put them. It is difficult to answer further questions, particularly on numbers, but I will keep the House and the country updated.

Malcolm Rifkind: The Prime Minister will recall Churchill’s remark that north Africa is the “soft underbelly” of Europe. Does he agree that that is true today, and that al-Qaeda-inspired or directed terrorism is as much of a threat to the people of this country and of Europe as to the unfortunate people who live in that region? Given that the United Kingdom traditionally has not had a strong presence in this part
	of north Africa, will the Prime Minister agree that there is a powerful case for a much stronger political, diplomatic and intelligence effort in the region, as part of a co-ordinated strategy with our European and American allies, and the wider international community?

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend is right in both regards. Those who believe that there is a terrorist, extremist al-Qaeda problem in parts of north Africa, but that it is a problem for those places and we can somehow back off and ignore it are profoundly wrong. This is a problem for those places and for us. We need to be absolutely clear about that, particularly in our support of the French action in Mali, where it is vital that we do not allow an al-Qaeda-sponsored regime to take over the entire country. He is also right that we need to give proper priority in our strategic thinking and our strategic defence reviews to this area of the world. The Government are now doing that, but I am sure that there is more work that we need to do.

Geoffrey Robinson: I thank the Prime Minister for coming to the House. It is appropriate that he reported this grave situation in the way he did and in the tone he adopted. He rightly said that we must give the French every support, and I think the whole House would agree with that. It is important that they prevail in that intervention, which enjoys the support of the whole Security Council and of the UN. Will he confirm that we have responded positively to every request from the French for logistical or other help when we have been able to provide it?

David Cameron: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I think we were the first country in the world to ask the French how we could help and then to deliver it. That took the form of two C-17s, one of which has been transporting French troops into Mali. I spoke again with President Hollande yesterday and said that the offer of the continued use of that C-17 was there. We are looking at a range of other things that we can do to help with logistics and back-up.
	As I have said, we fully support the French action. The threat in Mali is effectively of a rebel regime, supported by terrorists and al-Qaeda, taking over the country. That is a threat not just to that region, but to the world. Of course, we should be and are encouraging other countries in west Africa to bring troops into Mali to help defend the Malian Government and people, and there are good signs that countries in west Africa are taking that lead and helping to achieve that. We shall continue to work very closely with the French and see how we can help further.

Martin Horwood: The EU military training mission in Somalia has achieved great success and there are similar plans to support the Malian armed forces with an EU training mission. Do these terrible events demonstrate a wider need for training and support for authorities across the region, both to increase resilience to attack and to improve the chances of successful outcomes that minimise loss of life when such terrible events happen?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. These events demonstrate the importance of training missions and of having good and strong political, diplomatic
	and military relations with countries in the region. The example in Somalia shows the importance of encouraging neighbouring countries to help to provide security and rebuild these countries. As I have said, we support the action that the French Government have taken in Mali, but over time, it is important that the countries of west Africa step up to provide stability and beat back terrorism in that country.

Angus Robertson: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. This tragedy is touching families in a great many countries and causing fears for families in many places, including in Scotland. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that there is the greatest possible co-ordination with the Scottish Government to ensure that those families receive all the necessary support?

David Cameron: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), has spoken to Kenny MacAskill on several occasions and I spoke to the Scottish First Minister yesterday. It is important that we work together closely on this matter and we will try to keep the hon. Gentleman updated on all the information.

Tony Baldry: This terrorist atrocity was obviously some time in the planning. The terrorists needed to acquire weapons, quartermasters and so on. Does that not emphasise the need for us to work collaboratively with our friends in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to share intelligence to try to ensure that such groups have the greatest possible difficulty in accessing weaponry and that, as far as is possible, they are denied access to the international banking system? The international community is quite rightly imposing sanctions on countries such as Iran, but we also need to do everything we can, through the intelligence services and otherwise, to frustrate such non-state actors in trying to perpetrate acts of hostility against us and others.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We have to do everything we can with our partners, through security and intelligence co-operation, to provide as little space as possible for terrorist organisations, whether in the banking system or in the availability of safe havens. That is what is so concerning about what has happened in west Africa, where parts of Mali have become a safe haven for these terrorists. He is absolutely right in what he says.

Keith Vaz: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), the fight against international terrorism cannot be conducted by one country alone; it has to be co-ordinated. Given that al-Qaeda in the Maghreb also operates in Morocco and Tunisia, what assistance can we give to those countries by way of sharing information, or perhaps giving them counter-terrorism assistance, so that we can contain this issue, rather than let it spread to other countries in north Africa?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We have good relations with countries such as Tunisia and Morocco at a political and diplomatic level. There are obviously opportunities
	for intelligence sharing, and I would argue that we need to add to that a degree of military-to-military talks and co-operation, so that when these regrettable events take place there is a high level of trust and an ability to work together. Obviously, there are some countries in the region with which we have very long, historical relations—Nigeria, for instance, with which we have a very thick relationship politically, diplomatically and militarily, and with counter-terrorism and all the rest of it. I think we need to go through all our contacts and work out how best to strengthen them in each case.

Bernard Jenkin: May I commend my right hon. Friend’s statement? Is this not a sharp reminder that we live in a world of ungoverned spaces and terrorist groups that can strike and create violence at any time? Is it not therefore very important that we maintain Whitehall and our agencies on a wartime footing, ready to respond, as my right hon. Friend is now?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I think this is a reminder of two very clear points. First, we face a large and existential terrorist threat from a group of extremists based in different parts of the world who want to do the biggest possible amount of damage to our interests and way of life. Secondly, those extremists thrive when they have ungoverned spaces in which they can exist, build and plan. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Under this Government—as under previous Governments—a lot of priority has been given to the funding of the security services, and there is now a good system for bringing together intelligence and military and political planning through the National Security Council, and in other ways including the emergency committee Cobra framework, which brings people together very rapidly to ensure that all parts of the British Government and state are able to bring their expertise to bear.

Helen Goodman: This area is obviously extremely unstable. As the Prime Minister knows, Algeria has just emerged from a civil war and there are failed states on either side of it. Will the Prime Minister say a little more about the diplomatic activity that he is now going to embark on in that region?

David Cameron: First, I want to praise our ambassador to Algeria and his staff, who have been working around the clock and have been extremely effective in getting information to us about what is happening. We are expanding our network of embassies and contacts around the world but we must look all the time at how well we are represented in different countries, and where best to thicken the contacts we have. I think we have to do that in partnership with other countries. For instance, there is no doubt that in parts of west Africa the French have excellent connections with countries where we have less-good connections, but likewise there are countries where the opposite applies. We need to work with our partners—I discussed this with President Obama last night—and ensure that between us we have the strongest possible contacts.

Bob Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement telling us as much as he can about what has happened. May I ask him whether our specialist experts in kidnap and ransom and hostage negotiation are still on stand-by to help in the event of this operation being ongoing, as it seems to be for a small group of terrorists who are holding nationals from this country and other allies?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The answer is yes, hostage negotiating experts are on stand-by with other sorts of technical expertise that we can provide. I have made those offers to the Algerian Prime Minister, and all those offers stand. We do have considerable expertise, but let me make one point clear. We must remember that the Algerian Government are facing the challenge of a massive terrorist attack with lives immediately at risk. While we in this country can be hugely proud of the technical expertise and the brilliance of our security forces and special forces, one can have the ultimate degree of planning and still find that these events end unhappily. We should bear that in mind when thinking about the actions the Algerians have taken.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Obviously, the situation facing those in the gas plant is appalling. What consideration is he giving to greater British military involvement anywhere in the region, including Mali, and what will be the possible consequences for the future of the whole region and the possibilities of long-term political peace?

David Cameron: We have offered logistical and other assistance to the French, along the lines I have set out—C-17 planes and other logistical support. We are also looking at the EU training mission and how we could contribute to that. I do not believe that in Mali we are talking remotely about combat troops or that sort of approach; that is not the role we see for ourselves in that conflict. I will say again that I think we should strongly support what the French and the west African countries are trying to do in Mali, which is to push back the rebel forces who are backed by al-Qaeda and ensure that they cannot take control of that country. I would very much caution against anyone who believes that if somehow we stayed out of these issues and just said, “This has got nothing to do with us”, that would somehow make us safer. I do not believe that is the case.
	Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb—AQM—is out to harm, kill, maim and do the worst it can against western interests, including British interests, and we have to bear that in mind. We face a terrorist threat that is made worse when we have so much ungoverned space in Mali at the same time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement to the House this morning. Algeria is one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the region, so will he undertake to maintain the closest possible diplomatic links with it—after all, our relations with Algeria have improved considerably in recent years—to combat not only the immediate short-term humanitarian needs but the emerging jihadist threats in the Sahel and Maghreb regions?

David Cameron: I think my hon. Friend is entirely right. Relations between Britain and Algeria are good, contact is good, but there is always a case for doing more. We have had very good contact over the past few days but I will not hide the fact that we were disappointed not to be informed of the assault in advance. We want to help in any way we can with technical and other assistance, but we should show understanding that the Algerian Government face a huge threat from Islamist terrorists. They were facing a situation in which there was imminent threat to life, and we should bear that in mind in the comments that we make.

Mike Gapes: May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and ask him to reiterate the importance of the economic relationships between Algeria and this country? Many homes in this cold winter—not just in this country but in other parts of Europe—are heated by gas that comes from Algeria. Surely the key message is that we will not allow terrorist organisations to break or undermine that economic relationship, which is not just in Algeria’s interest but also in ours.

David Cameron: I think the hon. Gentleman puts the point extremely well. One of the most important things about our country is what an open, trading, investing country we are. British citizens live and work all over the world and, as I thought the Leader of the Opposition put particularly well, they are working hard to do the right things and we should support them in that. We must recognise that, as a result, that puts particular emphasis on the importance of our foreign and diplomatic policy, and also our military co-operation with other countries. Part of the role of government is to try to keep our citizens safe wherever they are, and in those terms the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the economic relationship between us and Algeria. We have many companies with huge expertise in the exploration of oil and gas. They are a major part of the British economy and we should be supportive of them. The work they do in Algeria is vital for Algeria and it is also vital for us.

John Baron: It is essential that we conduct an urgent review regarding the security of our people working in the region, liaising not just with the appropriate companies, but local Governments, too. Given the possible links between this tragedy and the situation in Mali, which has been deteriorating for some time, was a threat assessment undertaken regarding our interests in the region? If so, what action followed from that?

David Cameron: The answer I would give my hon. Friend is that we are constantly updating the threat that we face from operating in any country anywhere in the region. We have known for some time, with the growth of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, that the threat has been growing. However, I would very much caution against any sense that—I am not sure that my hon. Friend is saying this—if we did not involve ourselves by helping the French in Mali we would somehow make ourselves safer. Britain is a country that is open to the world and is part of international partnerships. We should be working with others to help make the world safe all over the place, Mali included, because if we do not, the threat there will grow and we will face it as well.

Gemma Doyle: The Prime Minister referred to an offer of assistance from the consulate. Can he advise whether it has yet been involved?

David Cameron: The consulate is involved. We have staff deployed in Algiers who want to travel further south to be closer to the events that have taken place and to help, in all ways necessary, the people caught up in this crisis. We are working very closely with BP, which will be doing the same thing, and with Statoil—I spoke to the Norwegian Prime Minister last night—which will be sending an aeroplane down there to help retrieve people as well.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I associate my colleagues with his condolences and solidarity. Many of my constituents originate from north Africa, including Algeria, and are very hard-working members of our communities here. Will he look again, with our NATO allies, at how we might build on the direction he has set on the Mediterranean dialogue that exists for linking our countries with north Africa? Also, will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office hold itself available to inform our people around the world and people resident in the UK, for example those who are from Algeria, who may be more worried than everybody else about what is happening to their country?

David Cameron: First, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should keep the travel advice and information updated, and we do. He is also right to say that Algerians living and working in this country make an important contribution. His general point about working with NATO partners to see how we can further improve links and relationships with countries—Libya, Algeria, Mali and other countries in the region—should be a real focus in the months ahead. As I said, it is about diplomatic and political engagement, but military-to-military co-operation and understanding can be a real benefit too.

Jim Fitzpatrick: As part of the police parliamentary scheme, I spent time earlier this week with CO15, the counter-terrorist unit at Scotland Yard. Can the Prime Minister reassure us that the Government will continue direct funding from the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the excellent work that those officers do to protect us against terrorists at home and abroad? Can he also assure us that the Government will continue their efforts, particularly given Ben Macintyre’s excellent article in The Times today, to close down the space for those who would use religion, whether here or abroad, as an excuse for intolerance at best or violence at worst?

David Cameron: I have not read Ben Macintyre’s column, but I will try to do so later today. On policing, we see the work of anti-terrorist policing as absolutely vital and we will continue to prioritise it.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the Prime Minister for getting his priorities absolutely right. This is clearly a fast-moving and complex situation. Can he reassure the House that families who have a loved one caught up in these events will be able to access
	information about the general situation when information is available, as opposed to having to wait until there is specific news about their loved one?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. Our thoughts should be with the families. They will have had a truly dreadful few days as they think about their loved ones. I reiterate what I said: all of them have police liaison teams attached to them and they should be able to receive the latest information. I completely understand that the Government always have to strike a balance between making any comment about these events as they continue, and the dangers of doing so. There is so much other information around from other countries and other Governments that it is important to try to give a consistent and clear message about what is happening, the Government’s priorities and what we are doing to help in this very difficult situation.

Thomas Docherty: Shortly before Christmas, the Chief of the Defence Staff proposed that one of the new infantry brigades be formerly assigned to do partnership work with the Gulf and Jordanian armies. Will the Prime Minister consider extending that formalised arrangement under Force 2020 to north Africa?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent suggestion. The Chief of the Defence Staff has been looking at whether there is more we can do in terms of military exercises, operations and co-operation with the countries of west Africa. Clearly, with the Mali situation it is key that Ghanaians, Nigeriens, Nigerians and others bring forward troops to help in that country. We should be thinking about what we can do to assist in that process. The strength of having regular strategic defence and security reviews is that we can ask where the threats are coming from and where we can make the greatest difference with the talented and professional armed forces we have. Those are exactly the sort of questions we should be asking.

Adam Afriyie: May I commend the Prime Minister’s decisiveness, swift action and leadership in a difficult situation? Clearly, we must defend our British citizens abroad, and I very much welcome the support given to the Algerian, French and Malian Governments. Could he say a few words about the continuing role he sees for the United Nations and our role in the Security Council with regard to this situation?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the role of the United Nations, and perhaps that enables me to answer better the question from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about the importance of political processes. I profoundly believe, for instance in Mali, that there is a military part to what needs to happen, which is beating back the terrorist-sponsored al-Qaeda-backed rebels. Clearly, in all situations like this, there needs to be political process as well to recognise the deep political problems that many of these countries have. In the United Nations and as a permanent member of the Security Council, we can play an important part, in co-ordination with
	our allies, to help to get these political processes right. However, I caution against people who think that we can find a purely political and diplomatic answer to the Malian crisis. There is also a problem, a clear and present danger, of a terrorist-backed regime trying to take over the whole of that country.

Nick Smith: Can the Prime Minister please tell us more about the Government’s assessment of the links between the terrorist groups in Algeria and al-Shabaab and Boko Haram?

David Cameron: The best way to answer that question is to say that all of those organisations that are linked to al-Qaeda are therefore linked to each other. Some have a tighter relationship with the senior leadership of al-Qaeda and some slightly looser, but all the groups he mentions, whether al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Boko Haram in Nigeria or any of the other organisations, are pursuing similar goals of violent extremism, wanting to damage as harmfully as possible the interests of countries such as Britain.

Andrea Leadsom: Is my right hon. Friend able to reassure the House that not only European but all north African Governments are united in their condemnation of this terrorist action?

David Cameron: I believe that I am. The reaction from all Governments across Europe, north Africa and the wider world has been completely condemnatory of this terrorist attack. It is very important that we speak with a united voice in saying that this sort of terrorism is never justified, and, frankly, it has to be defeated. All of that cannot be done through a political process—a very important robust security response is required.

Tom Greatrex: The Prime Minister has referred a couple of times to the fact that the oil and gas industry is an international industry and that there is a considerable amount of mobility of labour from British nationals working abroad and liaison with British-based companies. Can he say a little more about the assessment that has been made of the number of British nationals working in this industry, not necessarily for British-based or even western companies, who are working directly, or as subcontractors, in that region? What advice and guidance will be supplied to them?

David Cameron: First, as I said in my statement, we are working with all the oil companies and talking to them about the importance of greater security. Obviously, all the countries in which they operate will want to provide greater security. It is in the interests of the Algerians, for instance, given that a large percentage of their economy is provided by oil and gas, that those companies should be able to operate properly there. From my experience of this episode, I think that there is perhaps more we need to do to ensure that the companies have a really good, up-to-date record of all the people who work for them and who work for any subcontractors, so that if anything goes wrong, we can have the swiftest possible information about who is involved and who is safe. On this occasion, there were some issues and difficulties around that.

Jake Berry: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement to the House this morning. He referred to an agreement that he has been able to obtain from the Algerian Prime Minister for our diplomatic mission to go south as soon as possible. He also referred to the remoteness of the region involved. Will he tell us when that is due to happen, and whether he thinks that it will improve the flow of information back to the families?

David Cameron: We hope that our ambassador and others in the diplomatic team will be able to travel further south today; the ambassador has a plane on stand-by to do exactly that. I think that that will help us to get more information about what has happened, but we are clearly still dealing with a very fluid and dangerous situation. Part of the terrorist threat has been eliminated in one part of the site, but the threat remains in another part. Until that is completely sorted out, we will not get the perfect information that we require about the exact number of hostages and the difficult facts about who is safe and who is not. I hope that we will be able to say more later today, but we simply cannot do so at the moment. We will have to wait for the outcome before we can do that.

Frank Dobson: May I join others in thanking the Prime Minister for his statement and for his clear understanding of the dilemmas faced by the Algerian Government? Will he tell us whether, in the light of the recent rise in tension in the area, any oil companies operating in Algeria have sought extra security measures either from the Algerian Government or from their home Governments?

David Cameron: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance today. The Government make an ongoing assessment of risk based on the intelligence that comes through and is properly analysed by the joint terrorism analysis centre, and companies as large as BP also spend a serious amount of time thinking about security and risk. The right hon. Gentleman asks a good question, and I will certainly look into that for him.

Henry Smith: I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement. This terrorist attack is likely to have been domestically planned in Algeria, but given the proximity to the Libyan border, what evidence is there of the wider involvement of factions in other states?

David Cameron: I do not think we can be certain about where this was planned. We know that there are real connections between Islamist extremist militants in Algeria and those in Libya. We also know that there are very real connections between those in Algeria and those in Mali. The fact is that these are all part of terrorist networks and, as I have said, they use whatever available ungoverned space there is in order to plan, build and thrive. If we look across the region, we can see that we need to back the French and the west African countries that want to improve the security situation in Mali. We also need to work with the new Libyan Government to reduce the quantity of ungoverned spaces there, and to ensure that there is proper security in that country and that weapons are properly accounted
	for. Obviously, we need to thicken our contacts and work well with the Algerians to help them in their long-running battle against terror. If we can do all those things, and probably more besides, we will have helped to make that part of the world safer and more secure, which would be good for that part of the world itself and good for us, too.

Robert Smith: Oil and gas companies might seem big and remote, but the people who work for them are part of a close-knit global family. Many of my constituents commute to countries such as Algeria while their families stay at home. Does the Prime Minister recognise the extra stress that is put on those families when there is a shortage of information and people start to speculate about worst-case scenarios? Would it not be better to keep speculation to a minimum while the information is being sought, so that only accurate and coherent information is given to the families?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many people from this country work in far-flung places to provide for themselves and their families, and we need to support them and think of them as they do that. He is also right to say that we must be careful not to give out information that could be unhelpful in any way. We have to remember that the terrorists watch CNN as well, as someone said yesterday. I also respect the fact that we need to be extremely careful in what we say, because of the families sitting at home worrying desperately about their loved ones. This is a difficult balance, which the Government will always try to get right, because there is so much information being provided in the global news environment in so many different ways. Just as there is a danger in saying something, there is also a danger in saying nothing. We have to try to balance that very carefully, and that is what we have tried to do in recent days.

Stephen Phillips: I also thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. He indicated that additional consular support was on the way. Those in the region might be aware of this statement, so will he tell us how that support can be accessed by those people? Will he also tell us how those at home who do not have a police liaison team attached to them but who might be concerned about people in the region can access information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

David Cameron: First, let me be clear that all the families caught up in this tragedy do have access to a police liaison team. That is extremely important. For anyone else who is concerned about loved ones or others in the region and who wants advice, the best place to get it is from British embassies or consulates. The Foreign Office website also has all the necessary travel advice. I should make it clear that, in regard to the travel advice for Algeria, the areas of that country where only essential travel is advised are the dangerous border areas. That should be made clear.

Kris Hopkins: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Following the apparent reluctance of Algeria to receive assistance, is the time approaching when an international force should be developed to respond to terrorist attacks such as these,
	perhaps under the auspices of the United Nations? That could give countries such as Algeria confidence about our intentions.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but there are difficulties with this. In the end, we have to respect the fact that different countries have territorial integrity and have to make decisions that they think are in the interests of their own people and their own countries. What we should be doing is trying to ensure that, in every case, there is the best possible contact and relationship between countries such as ours—where, regrettably, for reasons of history, we have had to develop real expertise in hostage rescue and negotiation—and other countries. Obviously, we do not have the resources to have such a relationship with every country, but we should be working with allies such as the French and the Americans and thinking about where best we can add value in those sorts of relationships. For example, we have a very strong relationship with Nigeria on that front. There is perhaps also an opportunity in the G8 and at other international gatherings including NATO to work out how we can all do more, so that when these dreadful crises occur, access to the best available technology, surveillance, advice and help can be more easily delivered.

Mark Reckless: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his calm and assured response throughout the crisis. In co-ordinating our response, how many of the Cobra meetings has he had to chair personally?

David Cameron: Cobra brings together officials from across government, the Ministry of Defence, our armed forces, the police and the security services, and it can meet on an almost rolling basis in terms of bringing the latest information and intelligence to bear. It meets under official guise very regularly. I have chaired three Cobra meetings so far during this crisis, and there will be another one later today to bring together the latest intelligence and information. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those in the British Government who have been working round the clock to try and get the latest information so that the right decisions can be made.

Harriett Baldwin: To what extent does the intelligence confirm the supposition that the planning for this appalling atrocity must have long predated the French incursion into Mali last week?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend asks an important question. It is difficult to give a certain answer, but given the scale of the terrorist attack on this gas installation in Algeria, the number of people involved and the sophistication of the weapons used, it looks like it was some time in the planning. As I have said, however, it would be ill-thought through to say, even if there was a connection with Mali, that we are wrong to help roll back terrorist advances in Mali because it might threaten us elsewhere. That is entirely wrong-headed thinking. We should be in favour of rolling back terrorist advances in Mali because it will help make us safer elsewhere as we squeeze the ungoverned space and recognise that these terrorists should have no place to hide.

Philip Hollobone: I commend the Prime Minister for his level-headed, energetic and resolute response to these developments. The west will not solve the problem of Islamic insurgency in the Sahara on its own. Given the colonial heritage of the African continent and the fact that this insurgency is taking place across borders, is there a role for both the British Commonwealth and the French Commonwealth within the African Union to ensure that ultimately there is an African solution to this problem?

David Cameron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks. He makes an important point about how France and Britain in particular should work together. Obviously, it is better to find African solutions, whether in Somalia, where neighbouring African nations have played an important role, or in Mali, where we hope that west African countries will play a role, but clearly countries such as Britain and France, with good relations, good contacts, good knowledge of African countries and good partnerships with them, should be working together. There are opportunities to put aside some of the traditional divisions between Anglophone and Francophone Africa and recognise that it is in our interest to boost the capacity of all African states to help deal with these problems. We should work very closely with the French as we do that.

Philip Davies: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), there might be some concern that the Algerian Government did not take up my right hon. Friend’s offer for the use of British special forces. Does he know why that offer was not taken up, and what assessment have the Government made of the expertise and capability of the Algerian forces to secure the release of the maximum number of hostages, given that so many British citizens are in danger?

David Cameron: First, let me be clear: of course, we offered to help and assist the Algerians in any way we could. Obviously, there are limitations on what we can do, given the logistics and time it takes to put teams together and get people to the other side of the world. On the Algerians themselves, we should show some respect and understanding of the fact that that country has fought a long civil war against the most aggressive and violent form of militant Islam. We should also recognise that, yes, we have expertise and pride ourselves on the brilliance of our special forces, but clearly the Algerians felt that they had to make decisions very quickly and felt that there was an urgent threat to life, so decided to act as they did. As I said, I regret that we were not informed in advance, and of course the offers to help were, and still are, there, but we have to understand that it was about the danger they faced and they felt they had to act.

David Nuttall: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement this morning and for his calm, assured and dignified leadership at this difficult time. I know the whole country will agree that he has made exactly the right call by being here this morning. It is too early to know whether any families in my constituency have been affected directly, but I know that all their thoughts and prayers will be with those families who have been.
	What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the risk of a similar hostage incident taking place elsewhere in the region?

David Cameron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks. The advice we have received is that there is a realistic threat of other such attacks in the region and against similar types of installations, and we have to guard against that. That is why we have had discussions with the oil companies and with Governments about what more they can do. We have to recognise that we face a terrorist threat across the region and the world, and because of this event we should be very wary and recognise that further such attacks are possible.

Antarctic Bill

Proceedings resumed.

Neil Carmichael: Following the Prime Minister’s statement, may I add my sympathies to those who have lost loved ones at this difficult time and concur with the thrust of all the questions put to him?
	Let me return to clause 5 of the Bill, which we were debating an hour ago. We currently have a good opportunity to test clause 5, because amendment 2 is provoking a constructive debate about its purposes. It is important to bear in mind just how vulnerable some parts of Antarctica are, particularly the Southern ocean, which is of decisive importance to the environment, not least because it absorbs up to 40% of carbon dioxide. It therefore plays a major part in the overall global environment. It is also important to note that the Southern ocean has a considerably more complex food chain than might at first be apparent, so it is all the more important to ensure that it is protected. That is why we are right to support clause 5 as it stands—because it not only ensures that protection is the order of the day, but that action can be taken if something goes wrong. That is implicit in clause 5.

Kerry McCarthy: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the seas in the area. Does he share my disappointment that the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources failed to agree proposals for two marine reserves in the Southern ocean, one in the Ross sea and one in east Antarctica? Does he agree that it is important not just to protect the ice mass, as it were—the land in Antarctica—but to look for environmental protection for the oceans as well?

Neil Carmichael: I am grateful for that intervention. The Bill looks into the marine aspects of Antarctica as well. Obviously we would be building on such measures in different ways, and although the Bill is specific about the provisions that the hon. Lady has already outlined, I take note of what she has said. Indeed, my interest in this area will lead me to discuss later the matter of promoting the protection of the Southern ocean.
	Let me emphasise the value of clause 5 in connection not just with preparation, but with contingency planning. That is where clause 5 comes into its own, because it makes it clear that contingency planning is necessary, and it is easy to justify in connection with the rest of the Bill.

Philip Davies: I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point, but surely he would accept that under the current arrangements, with the 1994 Act and annex V, people are already required to produce a management plan, which, as I see it, is not greatly different from what is proposed in clause 5. Does he therefore accept that there is still some doubt about whether clause 5 is as necessary as he says?

Neil Carmichael: Clause 5 extends the preparation from simply producing a management plan to contingency planning. Contingency planning requires one to assess risk—to be well aware of what the risks are and how great they can be in the Antarctic. I believe we are
	extending something that is already good, and I am grateful for the suggestion, which we have heard today, that we are building on existing good practice. Clause 5 is a significant step in the right direction in ensuring that contingency measures are taken, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) noted, we have had accidents. Those accidents have involved shipping and they have been significantly damaging to the ocean, and we do not want to see more of them, especially on Antarctica.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I commend my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for introducing this important Bill. Antarctica is one of the last great wildernesses in the world, and it is essential for the world environment to preserve it and not to subjugate it under commercial interests. This Bill can apply only to British citizens and British organisations in the British Antarctic territories, so has my hon. Friend had any discussion with any of the other countries that have interests in Antarctica to find out whether they are thinking about enacting similar legislation?

Neil Carmichael: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Yes, I have had such discussions, and I was quite surprised to find out just how far some other countries have gone. The Netherlands provides a good example. It is already further on than we are in taking legislative action on Antarctica. I met a Netherlands member of Parliament during the climate change conference in Doha, and I was impressed with the level of legislative detail the country had gone into in respect of Antarctica. I have talked, too, to representatives of Chile and noted their interest in carrying out a similar policy. I am pleased to have an opportunity to confirm that there is a memorandum of understanding between Chile and the UK on Antarctica matters. That paves the way for more international co-operation and demonstrates that nation states are taking the issue seriously.

Bob Stewart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nigel Evans: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman rises, let me remind everyone that we are debating new clause 1. We are not debating the generality of the Bill, and we have a Third Reading debate to follow.

Bob Stewart: I am hope what I am about to say will be about new clause 1, and it will be very quick. Is it not for the United Nations to co-ordinate international action?

Neil Carmichael: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. The Bill’s promoter knows that that question has nothing to do with new clause 1, so I would be grateful if he would now get back to new clause 1.

Neil Carmichael: I am grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), which gives me the opportunity to underline the fact
	that there is a treaty, that various nation states have signed it and that they have an interest in new clause 1. New clause 1 is unlikely to be discussed in the United Nations. I am fairly confident of saying that without contradiction, but I take into account, of course, your observation, Mr Deputy Speaker.

David Nuttall: Surely the point is that all the contracting parties will have an interest in ensuring that the treaty works properly?

Neil Carmichael: That is absolutely right. One interesting point about new clause 1—this is one reason why we should not support it—is that more and more nation states are showing an interest in Antarctica. That brings pressure in respect of challenges to the Antarctica environment as well as numbers. Some of the new arrivals are not as interested as we are in making sure that the area is properly protected and that responsible actions are taken. By passing this legislation, we apply international pressure, ensuring that other nation states that need to do the same get on with the process and that the international focus on what is important for Antarctica—the protection of the continent—continually remains a top priority.
	Amendment 1 deals with historic sites and monuments. It is an interesting amendment and it is right to discuss it because it provides an opportunity to make a very important point. The point is that the provisions relate to who is doing something, not to where the action is being taken. If we wanted to take action to preserve the hut of Captain Robert Scott and his colleagues, the fact that it is in what might be described as the New Zealand slice of Antarctica would not prevent us from doing so. As we would be going there to preserve the hut, British law would apply to our efforts to ensure that it was looked after properly.
	While I have a huge amount of sympathy with the thrust of amendment 1, and while I think that the hon. Member for Bury North is absolutely right to remind us that we need to have the capacity to deal with all monuments and sites of historical interest, it is with the British people, and those connected with Britain, that clause 15 deals, and they are more than welcome to pursue such priorities throughout the continent of Antarctica. I therefore do not think that the amendment is necessary, although I do think that it has given us a useful opportunity to reinforce the point that everyone in our jurisdiction would be covered by the clause. Indeed, as the Bill’s promoter, I have welcomed the opportunity to comment on all three of what I consider useful amendments—not because I think that they should be included in the Bill, but because the House has been able to discuss them all properly and make some important points.
	Let me summarise those points. With regard to the cost-benefit analysis proposed in new clause 1, the Bill is financially neutral. I do not think we should add any extra burden of bureaucracy, but I do think we should make clear that the real test is co-operation between all interested nation states in ensuring that the continent is properly protected, and ensuring that the measures on which we continue to work are properly supported and
	implemented by all of them. That is the test that I shall continue to press for beyond the passage of this Bill, because I believe it is critical.
	The main issue in relation to amendment 2, which proposes the removal of clause 5, is that we are building on existing measures—and quite right too. It is good that the House has had an opportunity to test the validity of the clause, because it is important. It will ensure not only that there is a line of responsibility for operators, visitors, tourists and so on, but that they must have contingency plans. In the absence of those two measures, such people would make themselves vulnerable to punishment. The clause also includes the important provision that people and organisations should be properly insured for whatever they may do. The clause puts into domestic law a clear set of responsibilities for operators visiting Antarctica.
	As I have already made abundantly clear, amendment 1, which refers to historic sites and monuments, is unnecessary, because clause 15 relates to the people who are doing something rather than where the action is taken. However, it has provided another useful opportunity for me to make it clear that we are taking responsible action, and enabling others to take responsible action, in protecting monuments and sites of historical interest.
	Let me end by expressing my gratitude for the opportunity that the debate has given us so far to expose and develop some of the elements of the Bill.

Mark Simmonds: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on getting the Bill to this stage, and I thank him for the time and trouble he took to visit Antarctica and his determination and commitment to securing environmental protection in the Antarctic.
	I shall begin by setting out the overriding architecture of the protections currently in place for the Antarctic, as there seems to be some confusion about that. The Antarctic treaty was signed in 1959 by 21 countries. It has several purposes.

Nigel Evans: Order. May I say to the Minister, as I have said to other Members, that we are talking about new clause 1 and the amendments, not the wider Bill?

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. I was trying to put the implications of new clause 1 into context. The Antarctic treaty has 50 signatories, and the UK is one of the core 28 countries that play a positive role, and we intend to continue to do so.
	I shall turn now to the amendments. On new clause 1, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) that the Government have prepared and made available a full impact assessment for this Bill. The impact assessment was independently reviewed by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which determined it was fit for purpose and that the costs and benefits of the Bill had been adequately assessed.
	The most likely monetised costs to arise from the Bill were identified as additional premiums for insurance cover, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, and one-off costs to any operators who will need to update
	their equipment or plans to deal with an environmental emergency. The insurance industry was consulted, and it was suggested that additional insurance premiums to cover the costs of responding to an environmental emergency would probably either be minimal or non-existent. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made that point. Given the level of insurance already required by operators and vessels in Antarctica, it was suggested that that was the case for both small and large operators.
	The one-off costs to operators of updating their equipment or plans was also deemed small, given that the vast majority of UK operators already meet the requirements.

Oliver Colvile: Has my hon. Friend considered how many people might want to visit Antarctica, and what the various consequences might be?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have carefully assessed the number of scientists and tourists who might visit Antarctica, and if my hon. Friend is patient, I will address his point in detail later.
	It is also essential to ensure compliance with the Bill’s provisions. As that will be achieved through the existing permitting system, the additional administrative costs will be negligible.
	One non-monetised cost of the Bill might be that operators adjust their plans to avoid highly sensitive or remote areas. Training time may also be needed in respect of any equipment obtained for potential response action. Again, however, such non-monetised costs are not expected to be significant. The main non-monetised benefit is that the Bill will reduce the likelihood of an environmental emergency occurring in the Antarctic through effective forward planning and providing a deterrent to potential irresponsible behaviour. The Bill will also reduce the environmental damage caused by any environmental emergency that does arise; simplify permitting procedures for non-UK nationals; and improve the conservation and preservation of UK historic monuments and sites in Antarctica.
	The Bill will also allow greater avoidance of the costs associated with undertaking environmental clean-up operations in Antarctica. Let me give the House a flavour of the costs. The most serious case of a maritime environmental emergency occurred when the Argentine vessel Bahia Paraiso sank in the shallow coastal waters in 1989, resulting in 600,000 litres of spilt fuel affecting nearby wildlife colonies. It was estimated that in today’s prices the resulting clean-up bill would be more than $10 million. These provisions are not reacting to hypothetical events; the Bill deals with real potential problems for the Antarctic.
	I wish to address two or three specific points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, the first of which relates to the point I was making about tourism. We do not believe that the Bill will reduce tourism to the Antarctic. Tourism is a legitimate activity to undertake in Antarctica and its level has risen dramatically in recent decades. In 1992-93, fewer than 9,000 tourists visited Antarctica, whereas by 2011-12 the number had risen almost threefold to 26,000. The Bill actually helps
	to ensure that tourism is well planned and undertaken responsibly. It is also worth noting that the Bill implements the liability annex, which will come into force only when all states that are party to it have ratified it—I wish to discuss that later, because it is an essential part of the Bill. That ensures that UK operators, including tourists, stay on a level playing field with those from other countries.
	In discussing his new clause 1, my hon. Friend also mentioned the need for post-legislative scrutiny. The Bill will implement annex VI to the environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty, once the annex comes into force. The Antarctic treaty consultative meeting of state parties will review the operations of the annex across the whole suite of Antarctic operations. We therefore feel that a specific UK review outside the structure of these international mechanisms is not necessary.
	My hon. Friend’s other point that merits a specific response relates to the exclusions from the Bill, including fishing for profit and transiting vessels. Other hon. Members have discussed this, including the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who rightly expressed disappointment in respect of the conservation of Antarctic living marine resources and the lack of agreement so far. I can give her a categorical assurance that we are working tirelessly to ensure that we bring the international community together to reach a satisfactory resolution. However, placing obligations on vessels that are just transiting Antarctic waters on a direct route to another destination would infringe their right of free passage in the high seas under international law. Such obligations would therefore contravene article VI of the Antarctic treaty.
	I also have to say to my hon. Friend that the UK has demonstrated clearly its commitment to the implementation of marine protected areas in the Southern ocean. Earlier this year, the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands announced one of the largest sustainable marine protected areas in the world, covering its entire maritime zone. I must put on the record the fact that that process was begun under the previous Government, and we have continued that important focus. So I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend on his points about new clause 1.

Oliver Colvile: Last night, I was at the Royal Geographical Society attending a reception and talk by a number of the military who had just come back from a trip to Antarctica. If new clause 1 was introduced, would it not do quite a large amount of damage by discouraging the military from going down there and doing research? What about those scientists who go down, too? Will it have an impact on them?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He will be aware that one of the exclusions under the Antarctic treaty concerns military operations in the Antarctic, although we have a presence there. We have a rescue vessel in case anything goes wrong and aspects of the Navy are there in relation to the Falkland Islands and the assistance we provide to them. There might well be problems for scientific research and the military if new clause 1 were implemented, which is one of the reasons I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North will withdraw it.

Philip Davies: I take the Minister’s point of new clause 1. If there is no cost-benefit analysis, post-legislative scrutiny or whatever we want to call it, how will the Government assess whether the Bill is effective or whether we need to put more measures in place to protect the Antarctic?

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify that point. We believe that the best place to do that analysis on an ongoing basis is under the architecture of the Antarctic treaty and at the Antarctic council, where the UK plays a significant, positive and engaged role. If opportunities emerge from that analysis in the future to add additional environmental protection with the agreement of all the other members of the Antarctic council, we will consider it extremely closely.

Philip Davies: Is the Minister saying that the Antarctic council will effectively be carrying out the kind of cost-benefit analysis that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has in mind in his new clause? If the Minister is saying that, all well and good, but I was not entirely sure that that was what he was saying.

Mark Simmonds: The Antarctic council, as well as the UK as an important part of that council, will assess the whole gambit and remit of the working of the Antarctic treaties and the Bills that have come out of the protocols that developed out of the 1959 agreement, the 1961 treaty, the 1994 Act and the protocols agreed in 2005. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that there will be continual assessments, but the assessments the Government have made in the run-up to the Bill demonstrated, as I said earlier, that there will be no significant additional costs or detrimental impact on UK businesses or scientific operations as the Bill is structured.
	Let me address the second set of remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North on amendment 1 to clause 15, which relates to historic sites and monuments as provided for under annex V of the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty. It is important to note that any party may propose a site or monument of recognised historic value for such designation to the Antarctic treaty consultative meeting. As the Antarctic treaty system operates on the basis of consensus, the agreement of all Antarctic treaty parties is needed for such a designation to be approved. Once approved, the proposed site is added to the approved list of historic sites and monuments, which is kept updated by the Antarctic treaty secretariat. As Members will no doubt recognise, the designation of historic sites and monuments and the protection that affords them under the Antarctic treaty and subsequent protocols is of extremely high importance to the United Kingdom, as we have significant historical ties with and have taken a significant interest in the Antarctic since Captain Scott’s visit there. It is important on this day to recognise the bravery and commitment of those early explorers.
	I want to ensure that the House understands that clause 15, as drafted, provides that the Secretary of State will grant a permit to any British national involved in such work. That will ensure that the work is undertaken to high standards, and that a proper system is in place
	to guarantee that any artefacts removed for conservation work remain protected until they can be returned to Antarctica. That is important because the British Antarctic Territory has published a heritage strategy for the conservation of the British historic huts and other artefacts in the territory, which has been agreed with the United Kingdom Antarctic Heritage Trust and the British Antarctic Survey. That sets out overall principles for heritage conservation in the territory, and the United Kingdom Antarctic Heritage Trust has developed such plans, and undertakes a programme of maintenance at some of the sites, particularly the huts, each year. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has granted the trust £100,000 in 2011 to support that important work, and the Government of the British Antarctic Territory share profits from the sale of stamps and coins, which also helps to support the trust’s important work.
	I am sure that all Members of the House share the national pride in the historic discovery, exploration and scientific pioneering legacy of the UK in Antarctica. The scientific legacy of Captain Scott’s exhibition permeated many of the studies undertaken in subsequent years. British graves and other important legacy aspects are also there.

Martin Horwood: Is the Minister aware that it is a poignant time to be discussing this subject, because it is more or less the 100th anniversary of the news finally reaching England, and indeed my constituency, that the Scott expedition had met its very unhappy end? One of those who died, of course, was one of Cheltenham’s most famous sons, Dr Edward Wilson.

Mark Simmonds: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. Of course he is absolutely right.
	I reassure Members that clause 15 already allows for suitable amendments to be made to section 10 of the 1994 Act to ensure the long-term protection of Antarctica’s cultural heritage. The British historic legacy spans right across Antarctica, as do our responsibilities under the Antarctic treaty system. It is therefore crucial that clause 15, which is vital to the support and the longevity of historic and monumental sites in Antarctica as well as the objects housed within them, is extended to the whole of Antarctica, not just those historic sites and monuments in the British Antarctic Territory. I am therefore pleased to be able to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North that the amendment is unnecessary. The 1994 Act already ensures the regulation of British activities in Antarctica. As clause 15 is an amendment of section 10 of that Act, it will apply also to all historic sites and monuments designated under the Antarctic treaty system, wherever they are in Antarctica.
	I shall now address the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that clause 5 be removed from the Bill. Before I respond to my hon. Friend, I want to ensure that the House understands exactly what clause 5 does. It places a requirement on people who are organising activities that are to be carried out in Antarctica, and which are connected with the United Kingdom, to take reasonable preventive measures designed to reduce both the risk of environmental emergencies arising from those activities and the impact that such environmental emergencies
	might have. The requirement must be fulfilled before the person who is carrying out the activities enters Antarctica.

Jake Berry: I reinforce the points that my hon. Friend just made about identifying people who might pollute the Antarctic environment, because the Bill enshrines the “polluter pays” principle. Historically, we have found it very difficult to identify that polluter, and often, as time has gone by, the polluter is no longer around to remediate the damage they have done. That is why I strongly support the specific point in the Bill that says, “Let’s find out who the polluter is before the damage can be done.” I think that is very important.

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend makes an extremely pertinent point. He is right in his assessment of the importance of both the Bill as a whole and the “polluter pays” principle. Many of the clauses are designed to act as a deterrent to ensure that the appropriate mechanisms, thought and strategies have been put in place to stop any emergency occurring and to react quickly in the unfortunate event of an environmental emergency in Antarctica.
	I would argue that it is essential that steps are taken to prevent environmental emergencies occurring. It is the Government’s view that the provisions in subsections (4) and (5) of the 1994 Act requiring persons organising activities in Antarctica to make contingency plans prior to their arrival in Antarctica are entirely sensible and appropriate. They are also a direct reflection of the requirement in article 4(1) of the liability annex to ensure that response plans are in place.
	The requirement to produce contingency plans in clause 5 covers a wider set of circumstances than both the requirement to take preventive measures and the duty to take response action under the 1994 Act, which focuses entirely on environmental emergencies. Contingency plans should cover environmental emergency scenarios as well as those involving other incidents with a potential for adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment. They also ought not to be limited only to those emergencies and incidents that result from planned activities, but should consider such events as may affect the carrying on of a planned activity. Many of these elements can be foreseen and planned for and form part of good contingency planning practice. However, it is not necessarily expected that every potential incident could be foreseen at the pre-planning stage.
	The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) was right to raise the importance of prevention and preventive measures. Despite the fact that the FCO can already require someone seeking a permit for their Antarctic activities under the Antarctic Act 1994 to take preparatory measures—a point that was made very clearly and articulately by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley—we are strongly of the view that there is still a need to legislate to implement fully the requirements of the liability annex. The annex states that each party is to require its operators to undertake these tasks, whether or not that party has prior authorisation.
	Let me address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made in relation to guidance requirements on contingency and pre-planning which
	already exist, as we have signed annex VI of the protocol. The guidance that we issue requires contingency and pre-planning because it is good practice in the UK, ahead of the curve, not because we have signed the annex. It is therefore important that we put this into a legislative structure. However, it will apply only to operators who apply to the FCO for a permit, not to all UK operators, as required by the annex. That would clearly change if we put it in a legislative framework.
	It is clear that there is a strong connection between this provision and the 1994 Act. For those UK operators who go through the UK’s permitting process, and who are already subject to these, there are clearly advantages. For these operators the Government would be keen to ensure that there is no duplication of effort and no additional bureaucracy arising from these proposals.
	Let me clarify a couple of points that relate to clause 5. There was a little confusion earlier, so let me inform the House that there is no relationship between annex V of the protocol, which provides for the designation of sites requiring protection, and clause 5, which seeks to ensure that all those going to Antarctica undertake pre-planning and prepare contingency plans.
	So far, six countries have ratified the protocols—Finland, Peru, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Australia—and we very much hope to be the seventh. I can assure the House that once the Bill is passed we will forcefully attempt to persuade other countries to ratify as quickly as possible so that the contents of the Bill can be implemented as quickly as possible.
	It is essential that clause 5 remains part of the Bill to ensure that best practice is enshrined in UK law. That best practice is enshrined in international law by the liability annex. The clause must also be seen in the global context. While the liability provisions are symbolic and central to the liability annex, they are likely to be invoked only in very rare circumstances and are intended primarily to act as a deterrent. The real value of the liability annex for Antarctica is the proposed introduction of a duty on all state parties to ensure that their operators take preventive measures and make contingency plans that will apply to all expeditions, not just those that have a permit from the UK.
	Given those assurances, I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North and for Shipley will withdraw their new clause and amendments.

David Nuttall: We have had a very full and comprehensive debate on new clause 1 and my amendment, and on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I have listened closely to what Members have said, particularly the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael).
	On the new clause, the Minister said that there will be a reassessment of the effectiveness of the protocol once it is passed into law by all the nations that are signatories to the treaty, and he has reassured me on that point. It is important that international mechanisms are used to review the effectiveness of the treaty.
	In respect of my amendment, which relates to historic sites and monuments, I am sure that the whole House will be as reassured as I am that the protection that is necessary for the huts of Shackleton and Captain Scott to be preserved is already contained within the treaties and the Bill.

Philip Davies: The Minister made some very good points about my amendment, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). I am as satisfied with the explanations given on my amendment as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) appears to be with regard to his amendments.

David Nuttall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his view clear to the House. I said that I might be persuaded by his arguments, but I am grateful that he was persuaded by the other arguments, and that clause 5 will remain in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn
	Third Reading

Neil Carmichael: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am grateful for all the comments that have been made throughout the debates on the Bill, not least on Second Reading and in Committee. There has been a huge amount of all-party agreement about the purposes of the Bill.

Martin Horwood: May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour in Gloucestershire on bringing the Bill this far? The Bill is vital for the future of Antarctica and the wider environment that it represents. He has the full support of the Liberal Democrats for the measure.

Neil Carmichael: I thank my hon. Friend very much. I appreciate that, not only because the Liberal Democrats are part of the coalition Government, but because it is good to know that all parties support the Bill. I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments earlier on the Opposition’s support for the Bill. The Bill is important precisely because we all care about the future of Antarctica and recognise its vulnerability, as well as its awesome size and climate. The widespread agreement on the Bill is therefore impressive and reassuring to me and to others who have worked on it.
	I also appreciate the number of people who have congratulated me in one way or another on the work that we have done thus far. I reassure the House that I will not stop trying to ensure that the Act—if the Bill becomes and Act—is used as an instrument to encourage other nation states to do what we have done and underline the need to protect Antarctica for the foreseeable future. In my book, that means a very long time.
	As I have informed the House, I visited Antarctica at the beginning of the new year. I went with the British Antarctic Survey, supported by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I was pleased to have the opportunity to go there for several reasons. The first was, funnily enough, to understand more about why this measure really matters. That became increasingly obvious the closer I got to Rothera, the main base of the British Antarctic Survey, where we have up to 90 people working in various ways.
	This is a good opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the British Antarctic Survey. What it does really matters. I would like to emphasise the extraordinary amount of scientific research that is undertaken at
	Rothera and on other bases. We were there for only five days, but we looked at all sorts of research projects. For example, there is research into the future of the Southern ocean, its role in absorbing carbon, its changing food chain and the changing temperatures of the water at different levels. All of that matters because we need to know how our changing climate is influencing things and what the consequences might be for that continent and the various crustaceans, fish and other wildlife living in and around Antarctica. It was impressive and encouraging to see that the work being done to study the ocean is of such huge value in terms of science, research and commitment.

Oliver Colvile: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of this, but in the very depths of the waters of Antarctica, creatures are still being discovered. I do not know whether the British Antarctic Survey talked to him about that. It is important not only that we carry out a large amount of research in that area, but that we do not endanger those species.

Neil Carmichael: Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not only is he right about the new discoveries, but another interesting point is that existing marine life is taking a different shape in terms of breeding and growth and so on because of the changing temperatures. All that is part of the science that we need to see, which, of course, has been helped by really interesting technology, most particularly a glider—for gliding through the ocean, not the air—that is able to co-ordinate its own pathway and send valuable signals back to Rothera about what it is finding throughout the ocean, from top to bottom and along the bottom. We should be taking note and celebrating that kind of research and science. There was other scientific work as well.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend has explained that he went to Rothera, which is one of the year-round stations. As he will know, however, there are also two field stations: Fossil Bluff and Sky Blu, with Fossil Bluff being nearest to Rothera. Did he have the opportunity to visit the research stations?

Neil Carmichael: No, I did not get to Sky Blu although I heard an awful lot about it. It is a very important part of the work by the British Antarctic Survey and will remain so for some time. It is excellent that it is doing so well and contributing so much to our knowledge base about what is happening, and what will and could happen on that continent.
	We were also told about long-term record keeping of weather conditions, temperatures and so forth. That is important because we cannot just take a snapshot now and make a judgment; we need to go back some years. The British Antarctic Survey has been working on climate change, looking for patterns and studying changes for nearly 20 years. That knowledge base is important and it is used by others as a benchmark for measuring developments in climate change.

Jake Berry: My hon. Friend is speaking interestingly about the work of the British Antarctic Survey. Did he get the opportunity to see some of the work that it has been doing on ice cores to measure the historical carbon dioxide content in our atmosphere, which is hugely important in global warming and climate change?

Neil Carmichael: Yes I did, and the ice cores are from drilling down into ice that is 800,000 years old. That tells us a huge amount about what was happening to the air, because trapped within the ice are very small air bubbles that contain strong messages and signals about what life was like all those years ago. Ice core research is a huge logistical exercise. First it has to be drilled and transported, and then it needs to go to Cambridge for proper evaluation.
	That brings me to the important role that the British Antarctic Survey plays in providing logistics, not just to the scientists—although that is crucial—but to visitors and other structures. I want to emphasise the international nature of the British Antarctic Survey. It is able to help other nation states in their work and I was particularly struck by the good relationships that exist between the various countries represented, in connection with scientific discoveries and the work they do.
	As I mentioned in connection with clause 5, the memorandum of understanding between Britain and Chile was signed before Christmas and is clearly much appreciated by the Chileans. Britain also has relationships with other European countries, which serves to enhance the quality of the work—not least because a Dutch contingent of scientists at Rothera is doing important work in the invertebrates department—and shows the level of co-operation. Co-operation is necessary in the Antarctic continent because the risks are great—they really are great. Not being able or willing to help others would be a danger, but that danger does not exist because of those good relationships.
	The British Antarctic Survey performs another important role: the simple fact of being there. It is important that Britain has a proper location in Antarctica that it supports and promotes. I was impressed by the level of dedication shown by everybody at Rothera and in all parts of the Survey’s activities. Ultimately, they are there for their work, and for their commitment to science and to the continent. However, by being there, they also show Britain’s commitment to the continent. That has to be noted, celebrated and properly recognised. For those reasons, I was pleased to go to Antarctica and meet people from the British Antarctic Survey, to thank them for all they have done, reassure them of my personal support and the continued support of the Government, and underline the fact that by visiting them we are signalling that we appreciate the things they do. We understand the stresses and strains involved in their work, and we want them to know that it is properly appreciated. I thank the British Antarctic Survey for giving me an opportunity to see all of that.

David Nuttall: While my hon. Friend was on his visit, did any of the scientists he met express any views about the Bill?

Neil Carmichael: Yes, they did. They were extraordinarily appreciative of it going through Parliament, and thanked me for promoting it. The Bill was one of the reasons I was there, and I learnt a lot about the impact it will have on Antarctica. I saw the appreciation from members of the British Antarctic Survey, and noticed that other countries were also appreciative of the Bill, particularly Chile. I was with the Chileans for some time, as we flew to Chile before we got to Antarctica. I had the opportunity of visiting the Chilean Antarctic Institute, which is the
	Chilean equivalent of the British Antarctic Survey. Like us, it has a strong science wing and recognises the importance of logistics—although it does not use its own, but accesses other logistical services—and like us, it recognises the importance of international co-operation. In terms of regional geopolitics, that co-operation is all the more important given the issues relating to the Falkland Islands, Argentina and other nation states. The presence and commitment that we have demonstrated in Antarctica for decades and the relationships we are developing with nearby nation states are necessary to ensure that our broader interests are protected and enhanced.

Jake Berry: The legislation relating to Antarctica is a template that we should seek to replicate across the globe. It is an exemplar of co-operation between countries that can put their national differences aside. Does my hon. Friend share my pride in the fact that Britain is front and centre in pushing forward international co-operation to protect what is probably the last unspoilt area of the globe? We can take national pride in that, and I believe my hon. Friend should take personal pride in the huge contribution that he is making through his Bill.

Neil Carmichael: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous intervention. I must emphasise the pride that I take in Britain’s leadership in this area. We have led from the front, and we continue to do so. If my Bill is passed, I will ensure that that work continues through the activities that I will undertake. I will do that even if it is not passed—although I hope it will be—because I am determined that Britain’s leadership should continue in all the areas that I have described. I am very proud of it.
	I was particularly proud to visit the British club in Antarctica, where Sir Ernest Shackleton based himself during his attempt to rescue his men nearly 100 years ago. That whole building is laden with history. It was fascinating to walk into a room that had remained relatively unchanged since he was there making those decisions and bold moves to save his men, and showing exemplary leadership and commitment to those he led. It was quite moving. Sir Ernest Shackleton is another example of the tremendous leadership that this country has demonstrated, both personally through people such as him, and nationally through our overall direction of travel on that continent.
	We must also salute Captain Robert Scott. Yes, his reputation took a slight dip, but people are quite properly recognising the sheer enormity of his achievement in getting to the south pole. Also, while he was going there and attempting to come back, he was still committed to carrying out scientific research. It is not often remembered, but it should be noted that temperature changes and other data were being collected right up to the end.

Oliver Colvile: Is my hon. Friend aware that Plymouth was Captain Scott’s home town? The Plymouth marine laboratories have done an enormous amount of research on climate change, and there is a great tradition in Plymouth of ensuring that that continues to happen.

Neil Carmichael: Absolutely. I have been to the university in Plymouth. I presented a paper on restructuring the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but my thoughts were not taken into account by the then Prime Minister. There we are. I enjoyed my time there, however.
	My constituency of Stroud has a strong connection with the Scott memory. Sir Peter Scott, the son of Captain Scott, established the Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust there. That was emblematic of Captain Scott’s wish—almost his last wish, in fact—that his son should get involved in that kind of activity. It is also emblematic of the fact that my constituency is interested in protecting the environment and is prepared to take the necessary steps to do so. I am proud of that connection between my constituency and Antarctica. One reason why I am so pleased to be able to take the Bill through the House of Commons is that there is a huge synergy between protecting the environment in my constituency and the need to do so in Antarctica. My constituency link and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) are strong and should be clearly stated.
	I touched on the foreign policy aspect of the legislation when I mentioned Chile and Argentina. It is important to note that other nation states are becoming interested in Antarctica.
	Just 12 nation states signed the treaty in 1959, but now the number expressing an interest in Antarctica exceeds 50.
	Unlike us, however, some of those nation states do not have aims and objectives consistent with a determination to protect the environment. We should be using our influence to ensure, first, that all nation states respect the idea that Antarctica should remain properly protected and not be exploited, and secondly that it remains demilitarised. It is important to state and restate both those points, because we have to remember that Antarctica is pristine, vulnerable, pivotal to our climate change issues and has no Government. It rests upon interested nation states to come to an agreement, including on territorial claims, about which we have heard in the past few weeks and whose contest the treaty suspends. We should take note of that.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the work of the Antarctic treaty consultative meeting—the highest level of government controlling the area—which will next occur in Belgium in May. Does he have any plans to attend that meeting on behalf of the House?

Neil Carmichael: I have no immediate plans, but it is important that we are properly represented at such gatherings. I know that the Government will ensure that their views are expressed and their contributions made—given the Minister’s excellent performance, we can be confident of that—but my hon. Friend makes a good point. As I have said already, I am committed to ensuring that other nation states do the right thing, behave in the right way and take the appropriate steps to improve and protect Antarctica.
	Political leadership is extremely important and it is right that Britain plays a significant leadership role, because we were one of the first nation states to show
	an interest in Antarctica and have been consistent on it ever since. We have always conducted ourselves responsibly—I do not expect to be contradicted on that—and we should be encouraging others to follow that example.
	We debated the Bill in detail on Report, but it is important briefly to canter through its key parts.

Oliver Colvile: Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the Irish? I understand that they have not been quite as quick to sign. They have accepted what they need to do, but they have not signed. I am concerned about why they have not done so. Have there been discussions with the Irish Government?

Neil Carmichael: That is one Government whom I have not spoken to about Antarctica. I met an awful lot of Irish people yesterday, but we did not actually talk about Antarctica—we talked about art. My hon. Friend is right, however, that we need to encourage nation states to do the same. There is a question not just of quantity, but of quality. We are legislating thoroughly on our agreements under the treaty, but some countries have not been as thorough, and we need to ensure that they become more so. The example of the Netherlands and ourselves is the right one.
	Where we are seeing, basically, expressions of commitment to the treaty, we need to see more, and we certainly need to see nation states such as the United States ensuring that they, too, take action. I have already been in touch with environmentalists in the United States to see how we might encourage a proper debate about the issue in Congress. I am working on these things. I intend to encourage all nation states to take the right action at an event later this year, when I hope to gather their representatives and explain what we have done, why we have done it and why they should do the same. That is absolutely right.
	Let me continue with my brief canter by underlining the importance of encouraging operators, visitors, tourists and everybody else involved not just to plan for their trip, but to plan contingency measures, to recognise that they have to behave in a properly responsible way and that insurance is necessary just in case things go wrong. If things go wrong, we need to be sure that tidying-up operations can take place in a timely, efficient and comprehensive manner. That is one part of the Bill that we effectively discussed in our debate about clause 5, and quite right too. I think we all agree that it is a good clause and part of that whole process.

Jake Berry: I want to raise the issue of insurance, which is not covered in clause 5. As my hon. Friend knows, it is covered in clause 6—there is some cross-reference between the two clauses. Does he know—I must admit that I do not—whether there is a developed and advanced insurance product readily available to people seeking to go to Antarctica today, or hopefully after the Bill becomes law, that they could effectively sign up to now?

Neil Carmichael: We have discussed insurance in some detail, because there are different types of insurance—in the shipping world, the tourist world and so forth. Obviously more products will be developed; the key thing is that people have to demonstrate that they are
	properly insured. I would have thought that things such as self-insurance and so forth will not meet the criteria set out. As more and more people wish to go to the Antarctic and the demand for more complex insurance mechanisms increases, I am sure that more will be developed. The key point, as I have said, is that there is no governance of Antarctica; therefore we need special dispensation through the treaty and the legislation, as in the case of shipping, to ensure that appropriate insurance cover is always made available. We discussed that issue in the consultation process, before the Committee stage. That is where were are; so yes, we should see more and more insurance packages becoming available as appropriate.
	The second part of the Bill extends protection to flora and fauna, including invertebrates, by ensuring that we do not import problems into Antarctica and so on. That is absolutely right and proper. When I visited Antarctica I noticed a keen interest in that aspect of the Bill. I was pleased to be able to reassure those who were concerned about the risks to the various crustaceans and so forth that we were talking about that we have taken action in the Bill. That is really quite good.
	The other aspect of the Bill is the monuments and historical sites. We could talk at length about those; the key point is that we need a responsible way of protecting them. We need to ensure that measures can be taken to put appropriate support mechanisms in place. We benefit from the tremendous work of the various trusts, organisations and others who are interested in doing this, and I pay tribute to them.
	Those are the key parts of the Bill. They add up to a very strong commitment by Britain to do the right thing for Antarctica. By that, I mean protect its environment, making sure that British interests are still prominent, and continue to work in an international framework to encourage other nation states to do the same. That is the direction of travel of the Bill, and I intend it to follow it with vigour—and, hopefully, with the continued support of colleagues.
	I commend the Bill on Third Reading.

Oliver Colvile: Let me start with a quote:
	“To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield”.
	Those are the words that appear on the Scott memorial at Murdo Sound in the Antarctic. They appear, too, on the statue here in London, and, I am delighted to say, in Plymouth overlooking the Sound.
	I am most grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on introducing the Bill and on encouraging and allowing me to serve on its Committee stage, helping it to reach its current position. I feel that we are within inches of the final yard we need to travel to get over the line and get the Bill on to the statute book.
	I have to declare an interest. I am a trustee of a charity that deals with the Antarctic, and I was invited to get involved by Dr David Wilson, the great nephew of Dr Wilson who, along with Captain Scott, Bowers, Evans and Oates, died on the ice on 29 March 1912. As I said earlier, yesterday was literally the 101st anniversary of the Scott expedition’s arrival in the south pole. I am also a vice-chairman of the all-party group on the polar regions, of which my hon. Friend the Member for
	Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is chairman. Until recently, there was, sitting downstairs in the passageway here, an exhibition of a medal called the polar medal, which was produced after Scott’s activities on the ice. When I have walked past it, I have always been delighted to take a little time to look at it.
	I pay tribute to Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers for renaming, in the jubilee year, that part of Antarctica unofficially known as the Edith Ronne Land as Queen Elizabeth Land. I think that shows a clear commitment that our country has demonstrated to Antarctica. I am told that the area is situated in the Weddell Sea between longitudes 20°W and 80°W, stretching from the Filchner-Ronne ice shelf to the south pole. That was a very useful thing to do in that year.
	I became interested in Antarctica because Captain Robert Falcon Scott, born in 1868, was brought up in Stoke Damerel—as well as being born there—and attended what is now Stoke Damerel community college in my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency. He is, without a shadow of a doubt, a greatest son of Plymouth, along with Sir Francis Drake and other great, wonderful naval sailors. Quite rightly, Scott has been rehabilitated as one of Britain’s great national heroes. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been greatly interested in what has been taking place and has watched it very closely. Last year, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) was the Minister of State at the Department of Education, he visited the school to see for himself some of the Scott memorabilia, including a pair of his skis. I am told that quite a large number of them were littered around the world, but I am delighted to say that we have some in Plymouth.
	Scott’s tragic expedition was principally to undertake scientific environmental research. There has been a great deal of discussion about whether it was a race between him and Amundsen. I am told, very firmly, that it most certainly was not. Scott conducted his environmental research very effectively. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud told us earlier, the last message that he sent his wife before he died was about his son Peter Scott, the well-known environmentalist and founder of what is now the World Wide Fund for Nature. He asked his wife to
	“make the boy interested in natural history”.
	Last year the Natural History Museum organised a very interesting and worthwhile exhibition which showed what Scott had been doing during his time in Antarctica.
	Yesterday evening I went to a reception and lecture at the Royal Geographical Society. Some members of the military who had been on a very similar expedition to Antarctica explained to me how difficult the climate is down there. They said that people must be incredibly fit in order to survive. I am delighted to learn that there are now a number of global positioning systems so that we can have much better records of what is happening to the atmosphere.
	Captain Scott’s legacy is highly commendable, and it is a very big legacy as well. Should the Bill become law, I shall be proud to be able to play a small role in the safeguarding of our environment in one of the most important parts of the world.
	Last spring, shortly before the Scott centenary memorial service at St Paul’s Cathedral—it was addressed by the Bishop of London, who did an incredibly good job—I went to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), where I visited the British Antarctic Survey and looked at some of its work. I am delighted that it has been decided not to get rid of the British Antarctic Survey and merge it into the Natural Environment Research Council, and that the BAS will retain its own distinctive identity.
	During my visit, I learnt that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said earlier—the BAS had drilled 800,000 years into the ice, taken out that ice, and was analysing what had happened to the climate over those 800,000 years. It is still conducting that analysis. I even had an opportunity to touch some of the ice, which made me feel that I had touched 800,000 years’ worth of our climate. That work has had a major impact on the whole climate change story, which I find incredibly interesting. It convinced me that things are indeed happening to our atmosphere which are having significant effects.
	The BAS concluded that for the vast majority of those 800,000 years there had not been much climate change, although there might have been some global warming, mainly owing to slight tilts in the earth’s axis. However, it also found that during the 300 years since industrialisation began, there had been a significant amount of acidification of the atmosphere, which had produced much of the climate change. Acidification produces rain, which falls on to the earth or into the sea, where it is having a major impact on our fishing stocks. There are signs that some of the plankton and krill on which fish feed are moving. The Bill is important because it seeks to ensure that we are much more environmentally friendly, and I hope that the Foreign Office and the British in general will be taking the lead in that.
	When I was a child, I was always taught that the difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic was that the Antarctic was land surrounded by sea, whereas the Arctic was sea surrounded by land. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will know, penguins live in the Antarctic and polar bears live in the Arctic. Those are quite ways of remembering which is which. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has read “Penguins stopped play: eleven village cricketers take on the world”, a book about a man who went off and played cricket in every continent, including the Antarctic. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) has also played cricket in the Antarctic. Recently, devotees of Sir David Attenborough will have watched the much-acclaimed “Frozen Planet”, which was very informative, too.
	There is an enormous amount of tourism in the Antarctic, and unless we are very careful, at some stage there will be an accident. If so, the ferry or cruise ship operator involved should be held responsible for clearing up all the damage. We must not, however, discourage scientists from going to the Antarctic, and we should also encourage parts of the Government to use it for training purposes.
	I am delighted this Bill will be enacted, and that it will ensure tourist operators are held responsible for any accidents under their watch.

Philip Davies: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), and to learn of his expertise and interest in this matter, particularly as it relates to Plymouth. It was a pleasure to speak on Second Reading, and I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on Third Reading, too.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). He has built up a significant amount of knowledge about this subject. I was particularly struck by the fact that he has visited the Antarctic in his endeavours to guide this Bill through Parliament. That shows great dedication. Buoyed by his triumph with this Bill, he may well be thinking of introducing a future private Member’s Bill on, perhaps, the Caribbean, and of making it his policy to visit every place his Bills address. If he does not do that, I am sure other Members will have noted the initiative he has deployed, and will want to build on his example.
	The Bill is important, and my hon. Friend should be immensely proud of steering it through Parliament. As we all know, managing the progress of private Member’s Bills is always a challenge, and it can be difficult to guide them over all the hurdles put in their way. Fortunately, the Members who tend to erect those barriers are not present today to block the progress of this Bill, and my hon. Friend has good will from both sides of the House. He has argued for the Bill with characteristic charm, too, which has also stood him in good stead.
	I certainly do not oppose this Bill. It implements an important part of the Antarctic treaty system, complementing and completing the set of internationally binding agreements. This is a noble cause. We must focus on both environmental protection and scientific research. Our country has a long and proud history of being at the forefront of both of those important endeavours, and the Bill continues that tradition. This country has always been in the vanguard of exploring the unknown and finding new ways to do things, thus revolutionising the way we live.
	Antarctica is, of course, an unspoilt part of the world, which is why we need to ensure the conditions imposed by the Bill are fulfilled, and any other legislation is also enforced. It is one thing having the legislation in place, but it is quite another to make sure it is enforced. The Bill achieves the first part, and it is crucial that all the relevant authorities are involved in making sure the letter and spirit of its provisions are followed.
	The Bill seeks to implement the liability annex to the Antarctic treaty that was agreed in 2005; the protocol has six annexes and, as we know, the first five are already in force, so this is the next stage of that process. Determining how the environment of the Antarctic will evolve over the next century presents challenges and has many implications for science and for policy makers. One reason why this is so important is that travelling to the most distant corners of our planet is becoming more and more popular. Such travel is becoming less of an issue, less of a challenge and more logistically possible. It is becoming more popular for adventurous people, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who want to explore distant corners of the planet. I do not think we can call them backpackers; they are just adventurous people. That increased popularity of travel
	is why the implementation of annex VI to the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty is so important. Implementation has been delayed and it is an outstanding issue, which is why it needs to be finalised.
	When the Government find it difficult to find the time for certain legislation, private Members’ Bills are the appropriate route to take, and this is a very appropriate Bill to steer through, particularly given that it has all-party agreement. It amends the Antarctic Act 1994, and I wish to refer to something that the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said when that Antarctic Bill was being debated. I do not always agree with him, but I agree with the following:
	“The environmental message from the Antarctic is absolutely overwhelming. There is no other place on earth where one can drill for a core sample. In the Soviet research base the deepest possible ice-core samples have been drilled. We can check what the water purity was like as long ago as 500 years…We can see what we are doing to the planet by studying core samples of ice in the Antarctic.”
	He went on to say:
	“The Antarctic has the largest amount of water locked up in it of anywhere in the world. The Antarctic demonstrates the fragility of the planet and the ecosystem. If we do not use the Antarctic as a place for research, we shall be denying ourselves knowledge”.—[Official Report, 25 February 1994; Vol. 238, c. 568-69.]
	Those words said back in 1994 still apply in exactly the same way today. This Bill simply reflects changes that have taken place. It brings the legislation up to date and will help to ensure that other countries follow the example we have been setting.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud set out the position clearly in his excellent speeches on Second Reading and, in particular, on Third Reading today. He set out not only why this Bill is so important, but his passion for the subject; this was not just his personal passion, but British passion for this particular area, which goes back hundreds of years. The UK has been actively involved in Antarctica through the heroics of the explorers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) made clear, and this Bill is the next stage of our involvement, which is why it is so important to people in this country.
	I am well aware that we are on Third Reading and therefore we are talking solely about what is in the Bill; we cannot discuss what is potentially not in the Bill or what could be in the Bill. I certainly do not intend to deviate from that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I just want to pick out one or two clauses in the Bill that set out why it is so important and such a good piece of legislation—I do not want to go through the whole Bill, because that would be unnecessary and time-consuming.
	Clause 1 deals with the:
	“Duty to take response action”.
	That is incredibly important as it introduces a new statutory duty on those organising activities in Antarctica—importantly, both government and non-government—to take
	“reasonable, prompt and effective response action”
	where their activities
	“directly or indirectly give rise to an environmental emergency”.
	That is a key part of the Bill. It applies only to activities organised by a person based in the UK or activities “connected with” the UK—that would obviously be the
	case as that is all we can provide for. Nevertheless, the provision still makes a very important difference.
	In addition, the failure to comply—to make such a response—is made a criminal offence, with an associated maximum two-year custodial sentence or fine, or both. It is worth pointing out—this has not been done so far—that we are introducing some serious offences in this Bill. It takes an awful lot to be sent to prison in this country, as many of our constituents know only too well. The fact that breaching this part of the Bill is made a criminal offence with a two-year custodial sentence reflects how seriously the House takes these matters.
	Clauses 2 to 4 and the schedule concern the civil liability for failure to respond to an environmental emergency. That is a key part of the Bill and something that we should all support. The liability annex encourages parties to take response action to environmental emergencies when those causing them have failed to do so. That takes me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) made about the belief that the polluter should pay. One of the key parts of the Bill is the fact that it entrenches that principle in legislation. He made the point that too often in the past that has not happened and the Bill is an important step in ensuring that it does. It also enables the Government to recover costs in those situations where they might have had to take action to respond to an environmental emergency, allowing them to get the cost back. That is crucial.
	Clause 3, on the liability to the Antarctic environmental liability fund, is an important part of the Bill, and that probably did not come out in the debate as much as it might have done. It is essential, because it requires the operator responsible to pay into an Antarctic environmental liability fund the equivalent costs of the response action that should have been taken. That measure is more important than many people might understand and it was previously lacking.
	We must accept that such emergencies are not remote possibilities that will probably never happen. We have already experienced accidents in Antarctica that have raised ecological and safety concerns. Indeed, in recent years some kind of incident has taken place most years and the Bill might well help to deal with such situations. In November 2006, a Quark Expeditions ship ran aground on Deception Island in the South Shetland Islands. In January 2007, we had another incident in the same area—and so on, and so forth. I shall not go through all the examples, Mr Deputy Speaker, as there is no need to at this point. However, accidents are not just remote possibilities. There is every chance that the provisions in the Bill will need to be invoked at some point.
	I want to touch on clause 5. We had a fairly long debate on Report about the merits of the clause and I set out the case that it was perhaps not necessary, but having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the Minister, both of whom are experts in this field and know far more about it than I do, I think they made a persuasive case that clause 5 is an important part of the Bill. The duty to take preventive measures and make contingency plans is necessary and although there might be some requirements under the 1994 Act, the clause moves things further forward, puts more requirements on people and is a belt-and-braces approach
	to what is required. The Minister made the point—and I was particularly persuaded by this—that putting something in legislation so that it applies to everybody, not just to people who are applying for permits through the FCO, means that there is no doubt about people’s liabilities. That was a very good point and certainly persuaded me of the merits of clause 5.
	I do not want to delay the House too much further as other colleagues wish to contribute to the debate, but we can be very proud of the fact that we are continuing in a long tradition in this country of playing our part in protecting a very special part of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud should be commended. I know that when people do well in the ballot for private Members’ Bills they are bombarded with people wanting them to introduce one measure or another. Many people in this House will believe that my hon. Friend chose wisely and picked a noble cause. He is into the home straight—into the final furlong, as some might put it—and that is down to his skill. He should be commended for that and for introducing this important piece of legislation.

Jake Berry: I shall keep my remarks relatively short because other colleagues want to contribute to the debate.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). I hope he will reflect on the comments that I made in my interventions, but I think he can be extremely proud of this excellent Bill, which he has brought through the House of Commons. It is no mean feat to take a private Member’s Bill through the House, even with cross-party support. I hope that I might get the opportunity to do it myself one day, but I know that the process is academically rigorous. My hon. Friend has approached it with great integrity and a desire to tackle all the issues that face the Bill, and has worked across Departments; he can be proud of all that he has achieved.
	It is timely that we are legislating on the environment in the Antarctic, because it is the last unspoilt environment on the globe and it has been described by other hon. Members as pristine. It is probably not quite as pristine as we would like it to be. We have heard about recent sinkings of ships, and about the impact of tourism, and it is hugely important that those of us who do care about it take action, legislate and ensure that we protect it as much as we can. I note that the WWF commented:
	“Just a few decades ago this region was virtually untouched by human exploitation. Today, it is under sustained attack from land, sea and air, putting”
	all aspects of the environment
	“at risk.”
	So it is hugely important that we give the Bill its Third Reading today, and that it becomes part of our law.
	It is also important that Britain once again leads in this area. We were the first nation really to take an interest in the continent of the Antarctic. From Captain Scott to the British Antarctic Survey today, we have a hugely important role to play, and we have a legacy and a future that we shall be rightly proud of. I notice that the British Antarctic Survey has been there continuously since 1962.

Oliver Colvile: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that children learn about Antarctica—not only about Captain Scott and Shackleton but about the environmental requirements? Should we not be pushing the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that that is very much included in the national curriculum?

Jake Berry: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I certainly will not be pushing the Secretary of State to ensure that it is included in a very crowded national curriculum, but he makes a valuable point and I commend him for the work he has done with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensure that we recognise Captain Scott, who is, of course, one of Plymouth’s most famous sons. My hon. Friend has been a real champion of ensuring that that legacy, that great British history, gets into schools, and that we talk about and take pride in it. We should take pride in it because we are a buccaneering, adventurous nation and I like to think that spirit still lives on within us. By telling young people about that great history, we ensure that we shall be the people who cross the frontiers in the future, whatever they may be.
	Speaking of frontiers, when I was putting down some thoughts about what I might say this afternoon, I happened to be watching an episode of “Star Trek”, which I noted has a very similar form of governance to that of Antarctica—global co-operation not driven by money, and demilitarised. I am pleased to say that it is not science fiction; we actually see that co-operation—everyone working for the good of an area—today. We do not have to look for “Star Trek: The Next Generation”; we can see it today.
	I note that our territories have their own money. The Minister spoke about the profits from that going to support the British Antarctic Survey. I am an avid collector of coinage and I was going to make an offer to any Member who has been to Antarctica to swap me, pound for pound, some currency. I look particularly at my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who I am sure came back with pockets full of it. I have never seen any currency from our territory there and I would be pleased to have a look at it.
	I shall focus on two further aspects—first, the work of the British Antarctic Survey. We heard earlier about its fantastic work on ice cores, which provides the most persuasive evidence of the problem of global warming in this country. The problem is man-made, created by the burning of thousands of years’ worth of carbon within 200 years of industrialisation. I encourage those nay-sayers who say that global warming is a myth and unproven to look at the work on ice cores showing the changes in our atmospheric make-up and global warming.
	Scientists with the British Antarctic Survey were the first to discover the hole in the ozone layer. I was a young man when that was discovered, and it aroused my first interest in environmental issues. I thought I was making a great contribution when I invested in a Vidal Sassoon hairspray that, rather than using chlorofluorocarbons, was operated by pumping. I was pleased to see just a few years later that CFCs were banned. That was an enormous contribution and shows that a continent on the other side of the world can make a huge impact on environmental policy and thinking in our country. The continued work of the British Antarctic Survey is to be welcomed.
	My final point is about the hugely important “polluter pays” principle in the Bill. When the Environmental Protection Act 1990 came into force, there was a great kerfuffle among lawyers about whether environmental surveys of properties would devalue them and make them unmortgageable. To some extent that has happened. That is a case where the “polluter pays” principle has failed. I can give an example from my constituency. Brenbar crescent in Whitworth, the site of an historic town gas works, was thought to be polluted and there was concern about the value of properties there. Given that the town gas site closed some 80 or 90 years ago, it was not possible to find the original polluter.
	One of the great advantages of the Bill is the speed at which we will be able to act to get the polluter to remediate the damage that they do to a pristine environment. That is particularly important when we see the increasing tourism to the Antarctic. In 1992 there were fewer than 9,000 tourists. In 2012-13 there were 26,000 tourists. That is a huge increase in the number of people visiting the amazing and awesome place that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud described. I can see that it is attractive, but we cannot let that attraction and the commercial gain of tourism companies degrade the environment.
	That is why the insurance clause, clause 6, is so important. Any of us who have booked a holiday know that it is not unheard of for travel companies, operators and shipowners to go out of business. We cannot allow self-insurance and the Bill does not do so, but if we look to the proper international shipping and insurance market to ensure that we get protection, we can enshrine the “polluter pays” principle and make sure that when an incident occurs—they happen too regularly already—the money is readily available and we do not have to argue about which country should clean up the pollution. If it is in the British Antarctic Territory, should it be cleared up by Britain or the Chilean Government? We are not having such arguments. There is a clear line of liability leading back to someone who has the resource, the desire and the ability to pay.
	With 100,000 bird species, flora and fauna in the Antarctic, it is not a desert or a desolate land. It is somewhere we must work hard to protect. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) spoke about the new discoveries of creatures there this year. It is amazing to think that on a planet where we think we know everything about everything and all the animals under heaven, we can still be surprised to find things in this amazing environment that are new to us. We have to be very careful that we are not losing species before we even know they exist, because then we will not know we have lost them. It is important that the Bill proposes a ban on commercial fishing, because there is a danger that that will take hold in the area because it is such a rich resource.
	Finally, I want to speak about the Royal Navy’s contribution to the area. We all believe in this House, I am sure, that we have the finest armed services in the world. I have been involved with the armed forces parliamentary scheme and have had the great privilege of seeing some of the work undertaken by members of our armed forces, particularly the Royal Navy. We might be complaining today about the icy conditions outside, but the lowest recorded temperature in the Antarctic is minus 85°. We must pay tribute to those
	serving on HMS Protector, who are spending long periods there, on HMS Endurance, on HMS Scott and on other Royal Navy ships that go to the area to police it and to rescue people who find themselves in trouble. I want to record my personal thanks to and admiration for members of our armed forces who ensure that the global co-operation on keeping Antarctica safe, non-politicised and demilitarised continues.

David Nuttall: It is a great pleasure to follow my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), in speaking on this matter. I associate myself with his remarks about the work that the Royal Navy does in the area.
	I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on piloting the Bill through its Commons stages so skilfully and ensuring that it has arrived at its Third Reading in good time to be able to proceed to the other place. Having come seventh in the ballot he could easily have picked one of his own pet causes to promote, but instead he nobly took on the job of piloting this measure, which at first sight might not seem the most populist ever brought before this House but concerns a matter of great importance. It is testament to the Bill’s lengthy gestation period that it passed through its Second Reading so quickly in November last year, went through Committee in a little over an hour on 21 November, and will, I hope, pass through its Third Reading today.
	Some may wonder why such an important measure has been left to the vagaries of the private Members’ Bill system. I might have missed it, but I could not see it in the coalition’s original programme for government. Given the nature and content of the Bill, I find that fairly surprising. I would have thought that, in view of its cross-party nature and cross-party support, it would have been an ideal measure to put in the coalition’s programme for government.
	I am conscious that we have not yet heard from the Minister, so I will restrict my remarks to one aspect of the Bill—its effect on visitors to the Antarctic. Increasing visitor numbers is a good thing, because it is good that more people are interested in exploring the world and our environment. Television programmes such as the “Frozen Planet” series will undoubtedly have had the effect of publicising the splendour of the Antarctic to a wider audience. However, higher visitor numbers undeniably bring a greater risk to that precious environment. It is for that reason that we need the Bill desperately. We are putting into law the maxim that prevention is better than cure, which is a good maxim to follow in matters of environmental protection.
	We have heard that the number of tourists has increased enormously in recent years. That is partly because of the growing diversity in the nature of the tourism that is available, with more activity-based tourism such as diving, kayaking and extended walks. People no longer go just to look at the millions and millions of penguins that live in the Antarctic. Activity-based tourism brings different potential impacts on the environment from the traditional forms of tourism.
	We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that the Bill is not just of academic interest. Sadly, there have been occasions on which ships have sunk. In November 2007, the MS Explorer struck submerged ice with 154 crew and passengers on board and sank. Mercifully, all those on board were rescued, thanks to a passing Norwegian cruise liner. However, that example demonstrates that as more ships visit the region, there is a risk that accidents will happen that damage the environment.
	When it comes to the Antarctic, we should leave only footprints and take away only photographs. That is what we have often said about our own countryside, and it applies all the more so to the pristine environment of the Antarctic. I trust that the Bill will pass through this House today on Third Reading, receive a warm welcome and cross-party support in the other place, and have a speedy passage into law.

Mark Simmonds: May I begin my remarks on Third Reading by reiterating the praise that has rightly been expressed for my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) for his able stewardship of the Bill through its Second Reading, Committee and Report stages? He has done an excellent job not only in taking the time and trouble to follow in the footsteps of Scott and Shackleton, but in getting to grips with the detail of this all-important Bill.
	I also thank all those who have participated in the passage of the Bill at its various stages, and those who have proposed new clauses and amendments and taken part in the Third Reading debate today. One reason why the debates have been so successful is the cross-party support that has been shown consistently in the House for this important Bill and the important protections that it will afford to the pristine Antarctic environment. That has been highlighted again in today’s debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) was right to raise the presentation of Queen Elizabeth Land to Her Majesty at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by the Foreign Secretary on the last visit that the Queen made during her jubilee year. It is important that areas of the British Antarctic Territory are named for identification and safety reasons. It is fitting that such a significant area should be named after Her Majesty as she has been the sovereign for all of the time that the British Antarctic Territory has been in existence. I confirm to my hon. Friend and to the House that that approach fits with the provisions of the Antarctic treaty.
	In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport also asked about Ireland. Ireland has not signed the Antarctic treaty, although we encourage all states with an interest in science or activities in Antarctica to do so. We will continue to try to persuade Ireland, and over past years we have offered to facilitate any interest from Ireland in Antarctica. My hon. Friend may have been referring to Northern Ireland, and I assure him that all devolved administrations have been consulted and are supportive of the Bill. My final point in response to my hon. Friend’s remarks relates to education, and I confirm that the British Antarctic Survey and the Royal Geographical Society have provided
	an educational website on aspects of Antarctica, and a question about Antarctica was included in the GCSE geography exam last summer. Antarctica is, therefore, already a key part of the geography curriculum.
	The Government have consistently shown their support for this Bill and the important protections that it will afford to the Antarctic environment. A number of hon. Members have mentioned the legacy of Captain Scott and his fellow explorers, and scientists understand the significant risks they took when they set out on their fateful expedition. Despite considerable advances in technology and communications, Antarctica remains a potentially life-threatening environment.
	Human activity in Antarctica has increased significantly over past decades, and the number of countries party to the Antarctic treaty has risen from an original 12 signatories in 1959, to 50 today. As I said, in 1992-93, fewer than 9,000 tourists visited Antarctica, but by 2012-13 that number had increased threefold to 26,000. In addition to the number of tourists visiting Antarctica, in the mid-1970s only the original 12 signatories to the treaty had established research bases there. The Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs currently lists 80 stations, and growing global interest in Antarctica as both a place of science and of tourism poses an increasing risk to Antarctica’s environment. That is the background to the provisions in this important Bill.
	The consequences of an environmental emergency in Antarctica could be devastating. Antarctica is one of the world’s most pristine natural environments, if not the most pristine. The Southern ocean is surprisingly biologically diverse, and much of the Antarctic landscape is virtually untouched by man. On its own that is enough to make an environmental emergency potentially devastating, and the continent’s remoteness, harsh operating conditions and relative lack of infrastructure serve only to exacerbate any potential impacts. It is therefore crucial that all reasonable steps are taken to prevent, minimise or contain the impact of an environmental disaster, and that is the driving force behind my hon. Friend’s Bill and the Government’s support for it.
	This is an important, well-drafted and coherent Bill, and the clauses outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, and others, include important aspects concerning environmental emergency responses, civil liability, preparatory prevention measures, and historical monuments and sites. That comprehensive package of measures will greatly enhance the protections afforded to Antarctica and ensure that the UK has fully implemented current obligations in the Antarctic treaty.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) was correct to try to determine whether the Government will not just continue their interest but
	take a proactive role, and I assure him and other Members of the House that we will not rest on our laurels. Hopefully, after the Bill makes it on to the statute book, we will continue to participate in a significant and leading way.
	We remain fully committed to the treaty, seeing it as one of the best conflict prevention strategies, as well as a robust protection for our sovereign claim to the British Antarctic Territory. The Government want to ensure that the treaty system does not stagnate, and it is crucial that the treaty parties continuously look ahead and make sound, proactive decisions about future management. Co-operation has worked in the past and we it hope it will continue to do so. With an increase in the number of parties engaged, it is dependent not only on the commitment of states to the treaty system, but intrinsically linked to wider global challenges, from population increases to global climate change impacts, wider diplomatic relations and the continued willingness of states to work together for the greater good.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport pointed out, Antarctica is unarguably changing as a result of the climate. In the face of these challenges, the UK will advocate and implement comprehensive environmental protection measures and careful conservation of the Southern ocean. The Government remain resolute in our commitment to the indefinite prohibition of commercial exploitation of Antarctic minerals. We will continue to promote the values and importance of Antarctica, and ensure that the British historic and scientific legacy is promoted and conserved. Working with key partners, such as the Scott Polar Research Institute and the UK Antarctic Heritage Trust, we want to ensure that future generations can continue to be inspired by the endeavours of our forefathers. Most importantly, the Government want to ensure a continued active and influential British presence, both in the region and in the treaty system. This will remain grounded in science, but with a clear objective to uphold the principles of the treaty system and international law.
	I am grateful for the opportunity presented today by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud to reaffirm the Government’s continued and wholehearted support for the Bill to increase protection of the Antarctic environment. The Government look forward to continued support as the Bill enters the other place and hopefully proceeds expeditiously to the statute book.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Wild Animals in Circuses Bill

Second Reading

Thomas Docherty: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I am sure many people are disappointed that we have not had the chance to debate energy tariffs or financial literacy. I hope that those Members who are now slinking out of the Chamber, such as the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), will reflect, particularly in this weather, on the fact that we did not have the opportunity to discuss a measure that would help thousands of their constituents because they filibustered it out. I hope that their voters are made aware of that. On a more positive note, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), for the productive way in which his Department has engaged with this Bill.
	The House is familiar with this issue. Some 16 months ago, the House had a productive and constructive Backbench Business debate and resolved, without Division, that wild animals in circuses should be prohibited. In the interest of saving time, I do not intend to rehearse those arguments today. Instead, I shall explain what my Bill would do that the Government have yet to achieve. I hope that, through my eloquence, I shall be able to persuade the Minister to make a positive announcement when he responds to the debate.
	There is currently a licensing arrangement in place. A rather robust statutory instrument debate took place last year, led by the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris). It was one of those debates in which there was a lot of heat but not very much fire. However, we welcome the licensing as a step in the right direction, and we hope today that we can—to use a word that the Prime Minister is rather fond of—nudge the Department into finally upholding the promise that it made to the House 16 months ago to ban outright the use of wild animals in travelling circuses.
	The number of circuses that use wild animals has decreased substantially in recent years. According to the latest figures, only about three dozen wild animals remain in travelling circuses. The Bill does not cover the use of wild animals in television and film. There is a recognition that they form an important part of our creative industries, and that there are already strict controls in place covering the use of wild animals in those circumstances. Nor does the Bill cover the use of wild animals in zoos or aquariums. Again, rigorous standards cover those establishments.
	It is fair to say that the country has grown to dislike the idea of wild animals being dragged around the country for the purpose of entertaining people. A YouGov poll showed that nine out of 10 of the people surveyed supported an outright ban. The Back-Bench debate and the early-day motion showed that more than half of all Back-Benchers in this House support such a ban.

David Nuttall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Thomas Docherty: I will, because the hon. Gentleman has had the courtesy to stay in the Chamber.

David Nuttall: I am listening to closely to the hon. Gentleman. Will he explain why, if the need for a ban on wild animals in circuses is so pressing, the Labour Government took no action at all on the matter during their 13 years in office?

Thomas Docherty: We took a number of steps to improve animal welfare, and the number of wild animals in circuses decreased during that period.
	I often try to be helpful to the Minister, and I have indicated that I would have been happy, had he and his colleagues been so minded, to have used the Bill as a vehicle for taking the necessary legislation through. Perhaps he will tell the House when he responds to the debate what path the Government intend to take towards introducing a ban. There is cross-party agreement on this matter. No one in the House who is in their right mind believes that wild animals in circuses should not be banned. As I have said, nine out of 10 members of the population support a ban, and more than half the Back Benchers in this place signed the early-day motion in support of one.
	I have been in contact with a number of charities involved in this area—there are too many to list—and I have received more than 1,000 e-mails in the past seven days from supporters of a ban who have also contacted their constituency MPs. I know that there are many Members here today, possibly including the Minister, who have received e-mails urging them to vote for a ban.
	This is a relatively straightforward measure. It is also useful that the charities involved have found homes for all the wild animals if the circuses do not wish to keep them. As I have said, there is a role for them in the creative industries, and they will not be put down or kept in poor conditions. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) wishes to speak in the debate, and that I need to allow the Minister adequate time to explain how he has been so moved by my eloquence. So, with those brief remarks, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mary Creagh: I rise to support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and to congratulate him on introducing it. He deserves our thanks for securing the debate. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for playing such a pivotal part in the parliamentary journey of the Bill.
	There is a kind of “groundhog day” feeling to these proceedings. Stop me if you’ve heard it all before! We kind of have. There is a weary familiarity to the proceedings, except that we are looking forward to a jack-in-a-box presentation from the Minister providing a different ending, perhaps, to this debate.
	After two years’ delay, we still do not have a ban on wild animals in circuses. It has been a long and tortuous journey. In April 2011, DEFRA Ministers seemed finally to have caught the public mood. They, or their officials, briefed the Sunday Express that a ban was imminent—joy all round, flags and bunting. Then, however, came the DEFRA treatment—or was it the No. 10 treatment?—and a lot of political backtracking. It was a classic case study—I am sure people are writing it up as we speak and will be teaching it across schools of government across the world—on one of the many examples in DEFRA of a lack of political leadership and incompetent decision making. I must congratulate the Minister, however, on being the sole DEFRA survivor of the first two years, which might say something about his ministerial competence and decision making being different from that of his former colleagues.
	It is worth remembering what happened. We consulted on a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses in 2009. More than 10,000 people responded and 94.5% of them backed a ban, and in early 2010 we gave a commitment to introduce one. This ban was strongly supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, the Born Free Foundation and Animal Defenders International, all of which agreed that a licensing regime would be unworkable.
	Despite saying they were minded to ban wild animals in circuses, however, Ministers delayed taking any action to end this cruel practice of wild animals performing for so-called entertainment in circuses. First, they claimed that a ban might be illegal under the EU services directive, despite there being no evidence for it, as EU Environment Commissioner, Janez Potocnik, made clear in 2011:
	“Circuses are specifically excluded from the scope of the Zoos Directive, and are not covered by any other EU legislation. Therefore, the welfare of circus animals remains the responsibility of the Member States.”
	EU Commission 1, UK Government nil! Then DEFRA Ministers said that a ban was not possible owing to an ongoing court legal challenge to a ban in the Austrian courts. That created a lot of mystery and disruption, because the then Secretary of State repeated this allegation in her written ministerial statement on 13 May 2011. Sadly, her officials placed a little too much trust in Google. I see that the Minister is unsupported by his officials today, which is probably a wise decision—he is on his own at last, freed from the shackles of the ministerial Box.
	The following Tuesday, the then Secretary of State was forced to issue another written ministerial statement to clarify that no such legal challenge existed. The European Court of Justice confirmed that no cases relating to circus animals were being considered at a European level. I quote Christopher Fretwell, from the Court of Justice information service, who e-mailed me on 17 May 2011:
	“I have searched our internal databases and, like my colleagues in the Registry, have found no reference to such a case. It is perfectly possible that a case has just arrived at the Court within the last couple of days and is yet to be entered into our databases, but this is always a possibility. Searching the internet I have found a number of references to infringement proceedings initially started by the Commission around 2004-2005, but these never seem to have led to any case being brought before the Court.”
	European Court of Justice 1, DEFRA Ministers nil!
	Why, however, should that affect UK policy, and how does a ban on wild animals performing in circuses affect our obligations under EU treaties? Finally, DEFRA Ministers said that a ban on wild animals was not possible because—this really was a moment of high comedy—it could infringe the human rights of circus owners. On 19 May 2011, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), told the House that
	“bits of the Human Rights Act could be infringed by a ban on wild animals in circuses.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 502.]
	Yet his Department’s own impact assessment read:
	“There are no human rights issues raised by these proposals.”
	Left hand, right hand—strangers to each other! Had he not read his Department’s own documents? I am sure today’s Minister has.
	There was no reason for Ministers not to ban wild animals from British circuses. All these arguments were exposed and kicked around the metaphorical parliamentary football pitch in that extraordinary Back-Bench business debate on 23 June 2011—long may it live in parliamentary memory—when an extraordinary coalition of cross-party support for a ban defeated the Government Whips’ attempts to force the vote in the direction that they wanted it to go in. We all remember the speech that the hon. Member for The Wrekin made about his phone conversations and the inducements that No. 10 offered him not to press his debate to a vote.
	At the heart of this debate is a conflict at the heart of Government between DEFRA Ministers, who supported a ban, and the Prime Minister and No. 10’s ideological opposition to regulation and a pathological aversion to anything that protects animal welfare. DEFRA Ministers’ inability to make a decision and stick to it or, crucially, to get their civil servants to act on their decisions has long been a potent source of comedy for this House. The Government have spent 18 months and £261,000, as well as thousands of staff hours and hours in meetings with charities, preparing for a licensing regime that will not work. With the Minister’s announcement, we will see what a monumental waste of effort that was. Harvey Locke, the president of the British Veterinary Association, has said:
	“The welfare needs of non-domesticated, wild animals cannot be met within the environment of a travelling circus; especially in terms of accommodation and the ability to express normal behaviour. A licensing scheme will not address these issues.”
	The reasons propagated by the Government for not introducing an outright ban—a lack of parliamentary time, legal difficulties, the European Union, a lack of resources or a desire to avoid red tape—have been found, one after the other, to be utterly without substance. The Government were simply covering themselves for a simple lack of political will. It is time for another DEFRA U-turn. Let us have the ban on wild animals in British circuses. Too much time, too many resources and too much money have been wasted already. The Government need to get on with legislating for a ban to end this era of cruelty. They owe it to Parliament, to the public and to the animals. The Minister said on that day that the Government wanted a ban. The whole House wants a ban. Let us get on with it.

Richard Benyon: I thank the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who has the ability to work something acerbic into any conversation and sometimes—to put it in the context of this debate—to play the clown when it comes to what has actually happened and to what our commitment in DEFRA is.
	I fully appreciate how important the issue of the use of wild animals in circuses is, not only to this House, as has been said, but to the wider public. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on bringing the issue to the fore once again. The protection of the welfare of performing wild animals in circuses is a matter that the Government take very seriously and we have pledged to take tough, prompt action to address it. The Government have already announced that they will be seeking to introduce primary legislation to ban the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. The Government’s policy in this area was set out in two written ministerial statements, on 1 March 2012 and 12 July 2012. We further announced on 12 July that we would seek to publish draft legislation this Session for pre-legislative scrutiny that would outline our proposals for a ban. That position has not changed. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that DEFRA is working on a draft Bill and we firmly intend to publish it for parliamentary scrutiny in this Session.

Thomas Docherty: Just so I know that my ears did not deceive me—as he is a Conservative Minister, I have a great deal of trust in his word—will the Minister confirm that his Department will introduce the draft Bill for scrutiny in this Session, rather than just “seeking” to introduce it?

Richard Benyon: I will repeat what I said: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that we firmly intend to publish the draft Bill for parliamentary scrutiny in the current Session. The final timetable for legislation will be for Parliament to decide. It inevitably takes some time to reach a position where we can present a draft Bill that does the intended job and is robust against potential legal challenge.

Mary Creagh: Will the Minister provide us with some sort of timetable or calendar? When does he think this will happen—February or March? The Session ends in April. Secondly, will he explain why we need pre-legislative scrutiny, given that there are only three dozen animals in this position left in the country, and that this issue has been debated over and over again ad nauseam by Parliament for the last two years?

Richard Benyon: We want to make sure that the legislation is robust, so it survives any challenge from any source. This Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, sits on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which has a good record of pre-legislative scrutiny. I think that a cursory look at what we are proposing will allow the Bill speedy passage and ensure that it then survives and is effective at achieving what we want it to achieve.

Kerry McCarthy: As the Minister will know, when he had our debate some 14 months ago, we did not press the motion to the vote because we were under the clear impression that the Government
	were going to go away and start working on proposals for a ban. What has happened in those 14 months—between then and now—to justify the Minister telling us that he still has to work on draft legislation to bring before the House? Has not that work already been done over the last year or so?

Richard Benyon: A lot of work has been carried out. As I said earlier, we want to make sure that the legislation is effective. A number of challenges could be made against it if it fails to cover all the bases. I assure the hon. Lady that it our full intention to see a ban come in that will be effective at dealing with the small number of animals that remain and that deals with the possibility of travelling circuses or new circuses wanting to set up in this country. I will come on to explain what the Government have been doing in the meantime to bring in a rigorous licensing system that will be of comfort to the hon. Lady.

Martin Horwood: I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement that they have the clear intention to legislate for a ban on wild animals in circuses. Does the Minister appreciate that he will have very strong Liberal Democrat support within the coalition for such legislation to be brought forward in this Parliament? That is what I think all Members and our many supporters want.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think there is a coalition of the whole House on this legislation, and that the Government and all of us will be able to be proud of it.
	There is some justification for saying that there have been plenty of opportunities to introduce this legislation over previous decades and before, so let us look at what we are proposing. All Members will appreciate what it involves when they realise that the legislation will not only be robust, but will be something of which we can all be proud.

Mary Creagh: I congratulate the Minister on weaving a silk purse out of a proverbial sow’s ear. Will he confirm that if he introduces a Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in this Session, it will not actually be scrutinised until the parliamentary Session of 2014 and could then run out of time in the final year of this Parliament?

Richard Benyon: No, I think this will become law in the next Session, subject to the vagaries of the House’s opinions on the wording of the Bill—another reason why we want pre-legislative scrutiny. The hon. Lady can be absolutely assured that we want to get this measure on the statute book as early as possible; we do not want the issue continuing into future Parliaments. We want to make sure that it gets Royal Assent as soon as possible.

Thomas Docherty: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), let me give the Minister this guarantee. If the Department publishes the Bill prior to the end of February, the EFRA Select Committee will make every effort possible to scrutinise it this Session. If the Minister can use his generosity and commitment to make that happen, we will do our bit in the Select Committee.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will pass his assurance on to officials and ministerial colleagues who have oversight of this issue.
	The Government have already introduced new licensing regulations, as was promised in July, and these will come into force on 20 January—this Sunday. From Sunday, it will be an offence to operate a travelling circus with wild animals in England without a valid licence. The regulations will ensure that if a travelling circus continues to use wild animals, it will be subject to regular inspections to check that it is complying with strict welfare standards. The licensing regime is tough, and inspection will be rigorous. It goes without saying that the safeguards of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 against cruelty continue unabated.
	I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife for his efforts, but let me repeat that DEFRA is working on a draft Bill to be published and presented for parliamentary scrutiny in the current Session. Let me also repeat that we want to ensure that the Bill is robust, will do what it sets out to do, and will not be vulnerable to successful legal challenge.
	The Government fully recognise that—as has been mentioned today—the use of wild animals in travelling circuses generates significant public and parliamentary interest. In 2009, when DEFRA consulted on the question of a ban, 94.5% of the 10,000 respondents supported it. Since the start of the current Parliament, DEFRA has handled more than 120 parliamentary questions and 16,500 items of correspondence on the subject of wild animals in travelling circuses. There have been five debates in Parliament—including two on the licensing regulations in October 2012—supplemented by five early-day motions with a total of 223 signatures. Many Members have called for a ban, and during the Backbench Business Committee debate on 23 June 2011, which was mentioned earlier, the House agreed on a motion directing the Government to introduce a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses.
	It should be borne in mind, however, that a ban introduced solely on welfare grounds might be vulnerable to successful legal challenge. The Radford report on the welfare of wild animals in travelling circuses, which was commissioned, accepted and published by the last Government in 2007, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to ban the use of wild animals in travelling circuses on welfare grounds. In particular, Radford concluded that there was little evidence to demonstrate that the welfare of animals in circuses was any better or worse than their welfare in any other captive environment. We respect that piece of research and the people who carried it out, but I think that Parliament has expressed a clear opinion that reflects opinions in the country at large, and that is what is guiding our actions now.
	I hate to use cheap clichés such as the one about the elephant in the room, but it must be said that the recent high-profile court case focusing on allegations of cruelty to Anne, a circus elephant, has rekindled legitimate public interest and concern about the treatment of wild animals in travelling circuses. However, the outcome of that case is not in itself an indicator of endemic or systematic failure to promote welfare in travelling circuses. It would simply not be responsible to proceed with a ban without being confident that we would be safe from legal challenge. I think we are now approaching a point at which we know how to deal with the issue. In any
	case, the new licensing regulations will ensure that good welfare standards are in place for any circus that wants to use wild animals in the short term before the ban comes into force.
	The publicly available Radford report summarised the position by pointing out that the scientific evidence that welfare is being compromised is not compelling; that section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act permits only legislation to “promote animal welfare”; that banning on welfare grounds would be disproportionate in the absence of evidence that welfare was compromised; and that an outright ban might be beyond the powers in section 12 anyway, even if the welfare case were made out. Radford wrote that
	“it is submitted that to introduce a ban on the use of any type of non-domesticated animal presently in use by circuses in the United Kingdom…by way of a Regulation made under the authority of section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act would be vulnerable to legal challenge.”

Mary Creagh: When he was agriculture Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) said that he would introduce a ban on moral grounds. Will the Minister enlighten us on how far that has got?

Richard Benyon: I hope I am giving the clear message that this Government are determined to ban the use of animals in circuses, and I do not want to dance on the head of a pin in trying to tease out the different strands of opinion in the House on how to achieve that end. Societies’ attitudes change over time, not least on animal welfare issues, and this is one such issue.
	I take my family to see Giffords circus, which travels around my part of the country. It does not have wild animals, but it does have horses and dogs, and—
	The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2))

Business without Debate

WATER COMPANIES (SOCIAL TARIFFS) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March.

WATER COMPANIES (MINIMUM TARIFFS) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March.

TRANSPARENCY IN UK COMPANY SUPPLY CHAINS (ERADICATION OF SLAVERY) BILL

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (19 October), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (CONTROL OF ADVERTISEMENTS) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2007 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February.

PLANNING GUIDANCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Tony Baldry: I know that the issues I am about to raise are of as much concern to you and your Ribble Valley constituents, Mr Deputy Speaker, as they are to my constituents.
	I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise some important concerns about the clear and unequivocal advice that I suggest Ministers need to give to the Planning Inspectorate in the period prior to the adoption of new local plans under the national planning policy framework. I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), for being present on a Friday to respond to the debate.
	We need to build more houses. At every constituency surgery I hold in Banbury or Bicester, I hear heart-rending stories of families with very real housing difficulties. It is essential that councils make proper and adequate provision for new houses. During the debates on the national planning policy framework, Ministers have rightly made it clear that decisions on where new housing should go should be taken by local councillors, elected and accountable to local people, and decisions should be informed by new local neighbourhood plans expressing the views and wishes of local people.
	Local decision making, local accountability, localism and neighbourhood planning are at the heart of this Government’s approach to the planning system. No longer are we going to have top-down, imposed regional spatial strategies and a whole number of planning mechanisms that undermine local decision making.
	Local authorities, including Cherwell district council, have been working hard on developing a new local plan. Cherwell published its proposed new local plan last August. Its details can be found at www.cherwell.gov.uk/localdevelopmentframeworks. The draft Cherwell local plan looks forward for the next 20 years and beyond. It sets out how the area will grow and evolve in the period up to 2031. Cherwell district council estimates that between 2006 and 2031 we are going to need to build some 16,750 new homes in Cherwell, of which 2,542 were built by 2011. The intention is that between 2011 and 2031 some 14,208 new houses will be provided, with 6,997 new houses being built in Bicester, 4,352 new houses being built in Banbury, and 1,709 new houses being built in the rest of the district.
	Cherwell’s draft plan rightly seeks to utilise brownfield sites wherever possible, including the canal-side development in Banbury, on which it is now possible to build as a consequence of the construction of the Banbury flood defences and the fact that the land is now no longer within a potential flood plain. It also seeks to use significant building on brownfield land in Bicester as a consequence of the Ministry of Defence divesting itself of some 227 hectares of land from MOD storage distribution lands. So, over the survey period, Bicester will see nearly 7,000 new houses being built. Part of the new development will involve the new eco-town project, and I hope that Bicester can become a new garden city.
	Will the Minister update the House on what progress the Government are making with their garden cities initiative?
	As the Minister will know, Cherwell district council is committed to sustainable housing growth. I would be grateful if he updated the House on whether the former defence land at Graven hill can be transferred to Cherwell district council so that it can be developed quickly. There would then be the prospect of this being the largest self-build scheme in the country, with early work starting well before the next general election. The site lends itself to being a hub for off-site construction and, thus, provides an opportunity for national and local gain. I understand that Cherwell district council has come forward with a solution to protect the interests of the public purse and would ask if ministerial support could be given to make this happen, to enable officers of the district council to devote their energies to ensuring delivery on this site.
	Cherwell’s draft local plan makes it clear that Cherwell, as a district, is determined to ensure that full and proper housing provision is made in the local plan over the survey period, with robust proposals for new housing development. Comparatively few towns in England can have grown as fast over the past 30 years as Banbury and Bicester, and they continue to grow. Cherwell is a district that is determined to make robust and credible housing provision for the future. The consultation on the draft local plan proposals concluded last October. I understand that elected councillors will consider final submissions and suggestions at a meeting next month. It will then be a matter of waiting for the Planning Inspectorate to be able to appoint an inspector to consider Cherwell’s draft local plan in due course. Then, as soon as possible, and at an examination in public—we hope this will not be long afterwards—it can become an adopted local plan.
	As the House and everyone knows, once there is an adopted local plan, there is a general presumption that planning applications made that are consistent with the adopted local plan are very likely to be allowed. Likewise, planning applications that do not accord with the adopted local plan will be refused. Obviously, I hope that Cherwell’s examination in public will take place as soon as possible. I am conscious that the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, which is currently in the other place, will give the Planning Inspectorate considerable new duties, but that notwithstanding I hope that any extension of the Planning Inspectorate’s role will not take resources away from the speedy and timely consideration of local plans.
	Recent legislation also made provision for local areas to draw up their own neighbourhood plans, and I am glad to be able to report to the House that a number of sizeable villages in my constituency are actively engaged in developing and producing them, in accordance with the legislation. Such villages include Adderbury, Bloxham, Hook Norton, Deddington and others. In short, local councillors, local councils and local communities are doing exactly what the Government want them to do to ensure that there is adequate housing provision locally between now and 2031.
	So if everyone is doing what they are meant to be doing, the Minister might be prompted to ask what is causing me concern and why have I initiated this debate. I am concerned at the way in which house builders and developers are behaving in anticipation of the introduction
	of the new local plan. I am no stranger to the planning system. During my ministerial career, I was for some four years a Minister at the then Department of Environment, and throughout that time I was a planning Minister. I have to report to the Minister and to the House that what I am witnessing in my area at the moment is something akin to planning anarchy.
	For historical reasons, Cherwell district council does not, at present, have an adopted local plan, and it is not alone in that. I understand from the House of Commons Library that some 198 planning authorities in England—some 54%—do not have an up-to-date current local plan. One of the benefits of the national planning policy framework is, of course, that it is ensuring that all local planning authorities in England are working on agreeing new local plans, and that is much to be welcomed.
	There is also a dispute about whether Cherwell has an adequate five-year housing supply. The straightforward reality on housing supply is not that Cherwell district council has failed to make planning provision for new houses, but rather that house builders and developers have failed to build new houses, for which they have been granted planning permission. Such sites include: Bodicote/Bankside in Banbury, which has planning permission for 1,092 homes; Heyford Park, at Upper Heyford, which was itself subject to a lengthy planning inquiry a number of years ago and which has planning permission for some 700 new houses; and the Kingsmere estate at Bicester, where progress is comparatively slow because developers and house builders are building new houses only at the rate that they are selling built houses.
	Cherwell is not unusual in that regard, as the Local Government Association reports significant land banking across the country. The Local Government Association estimates that there are some 400,000 approved units with planning approval across the country. Indeed, the LGA has illustrated its figures on an interactive map, available at www.local.gov.uk/mapping-unimplemented-planning-permissions-by-local-authority-area, which allows anyone to click on to any local planning authority to acquire their figures on approved but unimplemented planning applications.
	Of course the district council, district councillors and local people have no control over the rate at which house builders build houses once planning permissions have been granted. There is no scintilla of a suggestion that Cherwell district council has granted planning permissions to developers other than in complete good faith in the expectation that house building would follow reasonably swiftly after the planning permissions had been granted. House builders and developers are making opportunist planning applications on sites that they consider to be the most attractive and their arguments, put simply, run something along these lines: Cherwell district council does not have an adopted local plan, and because it has no local plan housing should be allowed to go anywhere in the district and, as it is alleged that Cherwell does not have an adequate five-year housing supply, any new houses, wherever they are built, should be allowed on appeal on the basis that any new houses wherever in the district they are built will count in some five-year housing supply figure. That is planning anarchy. It effectively means that house builders and developers who get their planning applications in
	first, irrespective of where they are and irrespective of the number of houses, expect those applications to be granted, if not by local councillors, on appeal.
	If that continues to happen it will completely undermine any concept of a local plan-led system and any concept of localism and neighbourhood planning. I obviously do not expect the Minister to comment on any individual planning application and I fully appreciate that it would indeed be improper for him to do so. However, I want simply by way of example to highlight the sort of difficulties about which I am concerned.
	In the draft local plan, Cherwell district councillors have determined that the southern boundary of Banbury should be an ancient trackway known as the Salt way. Not unreasonably, local councillors are keen that Banbury should have some reasonably well defined boundaries. They are also keen that there should be clear green buffers made between Banbury and surrounding villages to make sure that they maintain their own identities and prevent areas from merging
	It seems to me to be a wholly reasonable and proportionate policy objective for a local planning authority to want to set planning boundaries and to ensure adequate green spaces between towns and other communities. A local landowner recently applied to build 150 houses on land below the Salt way. The application was refused, the applicants went to appeal and it is now clear that other landowners and developers who own options on land below the Salt way are not waiting to argue at the examination in public that their sites should be included in the new local plan. Those landowners and developers are now simply submitting planning applications in the hope that under the present system, whereby Cherwell does not have the protection of an adopted local plan and whereby they hope to persuade a planning inspector that Cherwell does not have an adequate five-year housing supply, any housing, built anywhere, will be allowed.
	Locally, developers are making planning applications for housing in villages that they consider to be particularly popular and attractive, even though such villages are required by the emerging local plans to take only limited new development consistent with Cherwell district council’s policy to seek to focus development on Banbury and Bicester. It is particularly galling that some of those house builders have had planning permissions to build on sizable sites elsewhere in the district, but have failed to build houses and now seek to pray in aid the fact that those houses were not built as grounds for being allowed to build houses elsewhere in the district where they would prefer to build—not where local councillors or local communities want them built, but where house builders decide they want them to be built. Again, I suggest to the Minister that that is akin to anarchy.
	What will the point of communities such as Hook Norton, Bloxham, Adderbury, Deddington and many other communities in my constituency undertaking neighbourhood plans in accordance with the new legislation if before they are even considered neighbourhood plans are undermined by planning applications from developers hoping they can get their planning permissions home before a new local plan for Cherwell is adopted? Some four appeals are already before the Planning Inspectorate, at different stages, against decisions by elected councillors
	in Cherwell recently to refuse planning applications for new housing, all of which are entirely inconsistent with Cherwell’s draft local plan.
	If Ministers want a situation whereby planning permission is simply given on a first come, first served, irrespective of where it is built basis, they need simply do nothing, because that is effectively what will happen. If, however, they want to see a responsible, plan-led system, with decisions taken locally, based on neighbourhood planning, they will need to give some very clear guidance now to the Planning Inspectorate.
	I suggest that Ministers should make it very clear to the Planning Inspectorate that in considering planning appeals, inspectors give considerable weight to the provisions of draft local plans. Otherwise, what is the point of planning inspectors allowing planning appeals that undermine the draft local plan? I would suggest that this is particularly important for those 198 planning authorities in England that at present do not have an adopted local plan.
	I further suggest that Ministers make it very clear to the Planning Inspectorate that in considering the adequacy of a five-year housing supply, inspectors have regard to unimplemented planning permissions. Indeed, that would be to do no more than to make clear what Ministers have already said on a number of occasions in this House.
	On 30 January 2012 I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), the then Minister of State with responsibility for planning:
	“Will my right hon. Friend instruct the Planning Inspectorate that in considering whether a local authority has made adequate provision for housing over a five-year period it should take into account all the extant granted permissions for housing that a local authority has given, irrespective of whether construction work on such housing has started?"
	The Minister’s response was clear and unequivocal:
	“My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We want to strengthen the sovereignty of local plans and it seems to me that if councils have done their bit by granting planning permission, that ought to be taken into account by the Planning Inspectorate. I will certainly make sure that this point is reflected in the new framework on which we are consulting.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 546.]
	Later, on 27 March, I asked my right hon. Friend similarly:
	“Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, when considering whether a local authority has an adequate five-year housing supply, will take into account where planning permissions have been granted but where houses have not started to be constructed?”
	to which my right hon. Friend replied, again unequivocally:
	“Yes. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. That has found expression in the framework.”—[Official Report, 27 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 1351.]
	And indeed, on 30 July 2012, the Minister wrote to me and said:
	“‘The policy is clear that unimplemented planning permissions count towards the five year supply’. The footnote does require consideration to be given to whether such permissions can be expected to be built. This is necessary because it would otherwise be possible for councils to meet their housing requirements by approving applications for land that is never likely in practice to be financially viable to build out. So viability does have a role to play. The footnote makes clear that all sites with planning permission
	should be considered deliverable, ‘unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years’, so the onus of proof is correctly to show clearly that they will not be implemented if they are not to be included’.”
	There is not a scintilla or a shred of evidence of Cherwell district council having granted any planning permission at any time for land that it considered was not likely to be built upon. However, the local council and local councillors, having granted planning permission in good faith, are not in a position to control the speed at which house builders and developers utilise such planning permission.
	Ministers are going to need to make it very, very clear to the Planning Inspectorate that, in considering the five-year housing supply, inspectors need to have regard and take into account planning permissions that have been granted or, as the Minister put it,
	“it seems to me that if councils have done their bit by granting planning permission, that ought to be taken into account by the Planning Inspectorate”.—[Official Report, 30 January 2012; Vol. 546, c. 539.]
	I would hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that Ministers are giving the Planning Inspectorate guidance on the weight that they should give to draft local plans and on the account that they should take of planning permissions that have already been granted.
	If such guidance is given, I think there is every prospect of the national planning policy framework being introduced in an orderly, sensible, plan-led way, based on the principles of localism, local decision taking and neighbourhood planning. If not, I think between now and the adoption of new local plans we are simply going to see some very opportunist planning applications, with house builders and developers simply hoping that those who put in their applications first will have their housing applications granted.

Nicholas Boles: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) on securing this debate, on a subject that I know is of close concern to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as well as to my hon. Friend.
	I want to start by addressing my hon. Friend’s proposals for a new garden city extension to the town of Bicester in his constituency, before moving on to the main point in his speech. I am very pleased to say that the Deputy Prime Minister has very much welcomed my hon. Friend’s invitation to work with him and local partners in Cherwell district council to explore the various factors necessary for Bicester to become a garden city for the 21st century. On a personal note, I entirely share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasms for garden city principles. I have visited Letchworth Garden City twice in the short time that I have been planning Minister, and I am inspired by the way in which Letchworth has combined a huge amount of green space, a huge amount of trees and parks and gardens and broad verges, with a great deal of housing that, when it was built, was very much affordable housing. It was not housing just for the well-heeled. If we can find a way to do that again, nobody will be more pleased than I.
	What is important—this is why it is so good that my hon. Friend made the speech that he did about Bicester’s future as a garden city—is that the proposals are locally
	determined, and that these communities spring up in response to local suggestion. I encourage more communities around the country to come forward with such proposals, and the Government will be thinking more about how we can encourage that. My hon. Friend mentioned Graven Hill, and there is another site in north-west Bicester. They have different needs and we are determined to work across Government and with local partners to ensure these are addressed.
	In addition to the ongoing discussions on each of these sites, officials from my Department have been in contact with Cherwell district council with a view to starting discussions on how all the development in and around Bicester can be brought together under the garden city banner. The Deputy Prime Minister announced a special fund of £225 million to support large locally determined developments of this kind and to help unblock any obstacles, infrastructural or otherwise, to such welcome developments.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend’s district council, Cherwell district council, on publishing its local plan in August 2012, and on producing a plan which, from everything that he has told us and all the evidence we have, does what the Government and the country would like to see, by embracing growth and the need for more housing development. That is vital, as my hon. Friend said. One of the greatest crises of social justice facing our country is that young people increasingly have no prospect of getting a home of their own until they are well into their 30s, and that there are many young families with both partners working who nevertheless have to bring up small children in a pokey flat with no green space.
	That is an affront to all of us and the Government are determined to tackle it. The important question is how. We tackle it by persuading local communities and local authorities that it is in their interest too to meet that need locally. The way to do that is to follow the policies set out in the national planning policy framework and draw up a local plan, as Cherwell district council has done.
	Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the Planning Inspectorate will proceed promptly and expeditiously with the public examination of that local plan, once it has been submitted. Although my hon. Friend referred to the new duties that the Planning Inspectorate will take on if the Growth and Infrastructure Bill achieves Royal Assent, I can reassure him that those duties are relatively limited and not as expansive as some have feared or suggested, and that there is no reason why the Planning Inspectorate will not be able to examine Cherwell district council’s plans and all the other plans coming forward for examination promptly and expeditiously, as I said.
	Let me also reassure my hon. Friend that the draft plan that Cherwell district council has produced emphatically does have some weight in decisions. Of course the weight that attaches to it is not as great as it will be once the plan has passed examination, and of course not as much as it will have once it has been fully and finally adopted. It was produced on the basis of extensive consultation locally, so it is not the case that developers can propose sites for development and that the plan will be entirely ignored by the decision makers in their decisions about such applications.
	Let me turn to the issue that my hon. Friend raised about sites that have received planning permission, but on which building work has not commenced. He was
	right to point out how that works in the national planning policy framework. I am grateful to him for quoting my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The framework is very clear that sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until that planning permission expires unless they have become clearly and demonstrably unviable. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that if, for instance, a scheme were proposed, perhaps in the heady years of the boom, that was even then a marginal scheme the economics of which did not seem to stack up, it would not be sensible for it to be considered a deliverable part of the five-year plan that the council is now adopting given that it was clear that houses would never be built on the site.
	That is a pretty tough test for any site with planning permission to pass, and it cannot be passed merely on the claim of the developer that was associated with the original application. There needs to be clear evidence, which will be considered by the inspector in their examination, and all that evidence needs to be available to the public so that they can see and test why the inspector has come to such conclusions. This is not an easy hurdle to surmount. It presumes that sites with
	planning permission will be considered deliverable unless that hurdle is surmounted and it is demonstrated that a particular site is unviable.
	I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend and his constituents that even though a number of applications are coming to the local authority from developers for building in areas that are not contained within the local plan, and even though some of those applications might have been appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, the Planning Inspectorate will be following the policy that he voted for and thought he understood. That policy does indeed say what he thinks it says, which it is that only in exceptional cases will sites be removed from the plan because they are clearly unviable.
	I conclude by returning to the example that Cherwell district council offers to the whole country, particularly to other parts of England with areas of great housing need and housing demand. The authority embraces its responsibilities. It is imaginative and creative, and, with my hon. Friend’s support and leadership, it is coming forward with exactly the kind of proposals that this Government want to see. I would love it if more authorities wanted to act in this way. I hope that they will be inspired by the work of Cherwell district council, its councillors, and my hon. Friend.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.